Gee, what happened to all the Cutler vs. Rivers threads

[bengaaaaals1688]

You mean the same guy who screwed up his career by getting involved with drugs, and then getting hurt in which it took him another year or so to get healed? Yea, considering again he is only 1 of 5 to eclipse a mark that you seem to think is one that should be disregarded. Just because guys like Emmitt Smith never fell into the trap of a Jamal Lewis or had a career ending injury like TD does not mean that they are not great backs or Hall worthy. Answer me this, if Emmitt Smith had taken a career ending injury in 95 would he still be HOF worthy?

So what you are saying is that the second Peyton Manning broke Marino's TD record he became a HOF no matter what?? **** the fact that he didn't even have a SB yet, but because he had played really well and broken one record, he belongs.

[haroldthebarrel]

How is that an excuse? He wasn't great for a long time. When I think of a great player I think of them being a true franchise player for a long stretch of years.

If Tony Romo keeps up what he is doing in two seasons or so by the definition of what you guys are proposing he would be a HOF player. Ewwie.

He was great. Just not great for a long enough time.

Then Brees are having a HOF career if he keeps up a few more years. Underrated yes. Nobody talks of him. But few are better.
Id have no problem arguing Brees over Romo because he has been dominant.
As good or better than Manning in many games.
But not unless he starts setting records. which incidentally he is on record to do now.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Curtis Martin will get in eventually. He was a top five back four years in his career. He was never at any point better than Terrel Davis while they both played. Well you could argue the rookie season. I say he had better stats, but he wasnt a better player. just on a better team.

But injuries happens to some people while he managed to escape them.
That is the whole argument there. One was unlucky, the other wasnt.

Longevity counts? Then put in Testaverde.
Superbowl wins counts? Then put in Warner.

But the fact is some precedents have been set. Those allows players like Swann and Sayers to get in, while others wont.

The argument should be, how good he was when he played.
Did he dominate. Well TD is by far the best playoff back ever.
More dominant than anybody else, even Emmith Smith.
Then individual honors, then longevity and then SB wins.

Should we just change the precedence or should we just create new ones whenever we please?
Nobody who has gotten the vote will get thrown out.

But the fact remains that the argument against him is that he was unlucky.
Nothing he could change, just something freakish happened.
Is luck really a good argument to keep a player out of honor?

Longevity is a PART of it, SBs are a PART of it, stats are a PART of it. These are all pieces, not the only relevance... How you played in the playoffs is a PART of it.

If you guys want to use the dominance argument FOR TD, then Gale Sayers does, in fact, belong in the HOF.

[Northman]

So other players have done it correct?? I didn't specify how many, all I said was that it was done before him, and has been done since him.

No it isn't... He is the only WR to ever lead his conference in receiving yards 4 years in a row, that isn't exactly an easy task, but he isn't the best at his position, isn't the best to ever play, and will only have an argument for being in the HOF if he plays long enough. You need to play at an elite level for a good amount of time in order to be considered one of the elite of all time.

When has a WR EVER won an MVP award?? And it isn't Chad's fault he is on a garbage team.



Charlie Trippi- 1947 - 1955
Cliff Battles- 1932 - 1937
Frank Gifford- 1952 - 1964
Clarke Hinkle- 1932 - 1941
Tony Canadeo- 1941 - 1952
Marion Motley- 1946 - 1955
Gale Sayers- 1965 - 1971
Ollie Matson- 1952 - 1966
Lenny Moore- 1956 - 1967
Hugh McElhenney- 1952 - 1964
Steve Van Buren- 1944 - 1951
John Henry Johnson- 1954 - 1966
Leroy Kelly- 1964 - 1973

Of each RB you posted only 2 of them started their careers after 1960, and not one of them played in the "modern era" of football. They played in a time with less games, more "ironmen," and less of an opportunity to do any of what RBs can do nowadays. It was a COMPLETELY different game, and seeing as there are only 4 of them who were even in the league while there was a SB, the amount of SB MVP's is irrelevant.


The fact that your even trying to argue that somehow 5 RB's in the NFL in over 60 years of football reached a certain plateau is average is just mind boggling. As for CJ and this "modern era" BS those are just weak excuses. Football is football, and you either set yourself apart or you dont no matter what era you are in.

[Poet]

Then Brees are having a HOF career if he keeps up a few more years. Underrated yes. Nobody talks of him. But few are better.
Id have no problem arguing Brees over Romo because he has been dominant.
As good or better than Manning in many games.
But not unless he starts setting records. which incidentally he is on record to do now.

Thats kind of the point. The way you guys propose it leads to a whole SLEW of players being inducted. If you want like 20 dudes a year being put in the hall of fame, and wanting to change it to "Hall of pretty damn good, or above average" then sure go for it.

[Northman]

So what you are saying is that the second Peyton Manning broke Marino's TD record he became a HOF no matter what?? **** the fact that he didn't even have a SB yet, but because he had played really well and broken one record, he belongs.


The fact that he broke Marino's record was a landmark, the fact that he managed to win a SB strengthens his legacy. The fact that he is still playing is just icing on the cake. He could retire right now and get in. Ironcially, TD did just as much damage in a shorter amount of time. Had TD stayed healthy and played another 10 years would of just been icing on a cake that he already deserved. See the similiarities there?

[bengaaaaals1688]

The fact that your even trying to argue that somehow 5 RB's in the NFL in over 60 years of football reached a certain plateau is average is just mind boggling. As for CJ and this "modern era" BS those are just weak excuses. Football is football, and you either set yourself apart or you dont no matter what era you are in.

I don't remember saying it was average, I said it has been done before. Please show me where I said average...

Football is football except for the fact that football has changed. What was once dominant is now average, what is now dominant will one day be average. Get it??

[bengaaaaals1688]

The fact that he broke Marino's record was a landmark, the fact that he managed to win a SB strengthens his legacy. The fact that he is still playing is just icing on the cake. He could retire right now and get in. Ironcially, TD did just as much damage in a shorter amount of time. Had TD stayed healthy and played another 10 years would of just been icing on a cake that he already deserved. See the similiarities there?

No... I said immediately after breaking the record. Before the SB, is what that would mean. If players should get in just for doing things that aren't done often, then he was already a HOFer just by breaking that record.

Hell, by your logic the man you keep saying I'm ridiculous for bringing up belongs in the HOF.

[haroldthebarrel]

Longevity is a PART of it, SBs are a PART of it, stats are a PART of it. These are all pieces, not the only relevance... How you played in the playoffs is a PART of it.

If you guys want to use the dominance argument FOR TD, then Gale Sayers does, in fact, belong in the HOF.

And that is exactly the point. LOL

Sheer dominance on par of Gale Sayers set a precedent. Unluck held them out of longevity.
So unless you discard the precedence set, no player who ever did not have the longevity should be in.

Only Kenny Easley has an argument that he was as good as Ronnie Lott.
He isnt in.
Then by your definition of what constitutes an argument, neither him nor Easley nor anybody else that had their career short has an argument for the HOF. Nor present, nor any players in the future.
That is a stance, but it has to be consistent.
And the fact that constitute longevity is in ninetynine percent unluck.
Unlucky that he got injured.
As I said, is luck a good argument to keep players off honor?

[haroldthebarrel]

Thats kind of the point. The way you guys propose it leads to a whole SLEW of players being inducted. If you want like 20 dudes a year being put in the hall of fame, and wanting to change it to "Hall of pretty damn good, or above average" then sure go for it.

He is having a career that rivals Warren Moon if he keeps it up.

We all know they screwed up the precedence rules by letting all the players who won SB got in over players who didnt. Their team won, unlucky they were to get not drafted by the Steelers et.al.

So when do the consistency begin?

[Northman]

This is one big circle jerk. At the end of the day what the HOF should mean is for those players that SET THEMSELVES APART from the average ordinary guy. I dont give a shit that it only took TD 4 years to receive a SB MVP award, 2 rings, and a spot that only 4 other backs have ever hit in over 60 years of American football. Any yo yo who just cant see it just doesnt get it and they never will.

[Poet]

The fact that he broke Marino's record was a landmark, the fact that he managed to win a SB strengthens his legacy. The fact that he is still playing is just icing on the cake. He could retire right now and get in. Ironcially, TD did just as much damage in a shorter amount of time. Had TD stayed healthy and played another 10 years would of just been icing on a cake that he already deserved. See the similiarities there?

No, oddly enough because you need more than one major landmark. Jamal Lewis for his career has more often than not put up around 1000 yards or so. He had three notable years, one 2k season, and two 1.3 yard seasons. That one landmark does not make him one of the best RBs ever. There are tons, and tons, and tons, and tons of RBs I would rather have than Jamal Lewis. Hell, there are almost ten in the game right now who would be better than him for his career.

Peyton Manning had several great years before he broke that record. That record by itself did not make him a HOF player. It made him close, just like TD. But, he had more of a body of work to get in.

I can see your argument, but what I don't get is how so many can act like it's so academic when in reality it really isn't.

[Poet]

This is one big circle jerk. At the end of the day what the HOF should mean is for those players that SET THEMSELVES APART from the average ordinary guy. I dont give a shit that it only took TD 4 years to receive a SB MVP award, 2 rings, and a spot that only 4 other backs have ever hit in over 60 years of American football. Any yo yo who just cant see it just doesnt get it and they never will.

You usually don't get so worked up and defensive Northman.

Whatevs, we are all friends here. Everything that needs to be said has been said. Time to just agree to disagree and move on. :salute:

[bengaaaaals1688]

And that is exactly the point. LOL

Sheer dominance on par of Gale Sayers set a precedent. Unluck held them out of longevity.
So unless you discard the precedence set, no player who ever did not have the longevity should be in.

Only Kenny Easley has an argument that he was as good as Ronnie Lott.
He isnt in.
Then by your definition of what constitutes an argument, neither him nor Easley nor anybody else that had their career short has an argument for the HOF. Nor present, nor any players in the future.
That is a stance, but it has to be consistent.
And the fact that constitute longevity is in ninetynine percent unluck.
Unlucky that he got injured.
As I said, is luck a good argument to keep players off honor?

Gale Sayers didn't deserve it, though, because he didn't last long enough. Your dominance can't just end almost as quickly as it started, you have to stay dominant... And most people in this thread have been arguing that Sayers doesn't deserve it.

You make your own luck... Why is it that a player who's entire game was predicated on being hit and hitting back, such as a Jerome Bettis, lasted 13 years, or a Mike Alstott who lasted 12 years, but a TD got hurt in 4?? It could be luck, or it could be that he wasn't built for it, or it could be his conditioning, it could be a myriad of things, but the fact is... He couldn't last, and therefore his dominance was short lived, and now doesn't deserve what he would have deserved if he had stayed on his game for another 4-5 years.

[haroldthebarrel]

Gale Sayers didn't deserve it, though, because he didn't last long enough. Your dominance can't just end almost as quickly as it started, you have to stay dominant... And most people in this thread have been arguing that Sayers doesn't deserve it.

You make your own luck... Why is it that a player who's entire game was predicated on being hit and hitting back, such as a Jerome Bettis, lasted 13 years, or a Mike Alstott who lasted 12 years, but a TD got hurt in 4?? It could be luck, or it could be that he wasn't built for it, or it could be his conditioning, it could be a myriad of things, but the fact is... He couldn't last, and therefore his dominance was short lived, and now doesn't deserve what he would have deserved if he had stayed on his game for another 4-5 years.

look at the injury to Hillis and tell me that has anything to do with conditioning.
Look at how Davis was built. Look at his arms. He might be the only Bronco in history who had a physique like Shannon Sharpe. Is that not conditioned?
One got injured and one didnt.

So if you believe any injuries can be prevented through conditioning then of course your argument is sound.
If you concede that some injuries are just what you calls "acts of God".
Then luck, or rather lack of it is the one and only reason that prevented Davis from having a HOF career. We can only judge by how he did, thus there are only hypothetical evidence to say he wouldnt dominate more.
Davis got unlucky, therefore he isnt in the HOF. (yet that doesnt apply to Sayers to the ones who actually can vote)

[frauschieze]

:laugh:

A thread about Cutler vs. Rivers has become TD in the HOF: Pro or Con? Nice twist guys. Well done. :drinking:

[bengaaaaals1688]

look at the injury to Hillis and tell me that has anything to do with conditioning.
Look at how Davis was built. Look at his arms. He might be the only who had a physique like Shannon Sharpe. Is that not conditioned?
One got injured and one didnt.

So if you believe any injuries can be prevented through conditioning then of course your argument is sound.
If you concede that some injuries are just what you calls "acts of God".
Then luck, or rather lack of it is the one and only reason that prevented Davis from having a HOF career. We can only judge by how he did, thus there are only hypothetical evidence to say he wouldnt dominate more.
Davis got unlucky, therefore he isnt in the HOF. (yet that doesnt apply to Sayers)

I didn't say it was, and I didn't say all injuries could be because of conditioning. You took my post wrong... My only point was that there could be a number of reasons why people get hurt or why TD got hurt, I also pointed out that luck could be one of those reasons.

I didn't say I wouldn't have expected him to dominate more if he didn't get hurt, and I stated earlier in the thread that I love watching highlights of TD because he was a great RB, but his entire body of work doesn't consist of a long enough career to be considered a HOF back. And again, Sayers doesn't belong in the HOF for the same reason.

[haroldthebarrel]

I didn't say it was, and I didn't say all injuries could be because of conditioning. You took my post wrong... My only point was that there could be a number of reasons why people get hurt or why TD got hurt, I also pointed out that luck could be one of those reasons.

I didn't say I wouldn't have expected him to dominate more if he didn't get hurt, and I stated earlier in the thread that I love watching highlights of TD because he was a great RB, but his entire body of work doesn't consist of a long enough career to be considered a HOF back. And again, Sayers doesn't belong in the HOF for the same reason.

But if you concede that Davis' injury was a freak accident. Then you are saying that luck and luck alone is keeping him off HOF considerations.
Sayers does not belong is irrelevant because he is. So either there are standards or they are not. And if they are not, the argument ends with either your personal feeling or the acts of God. Neither particularly rational points or do you think they are?
Either way, there was nothing he could actually do to improve his chances.

Secondly you are arguing in circles
" My only point was that there could be a number of reasons why people get hurt or why TD got hurt, I also pointed out that luck could be one of those reasons." but what are these number of reasons that could be?
You just throw out an argument and have no premises to found it.

[G_Money]

I'm on the no-HOF-for-TD side of this.

But I still adore the man. :salute:

~G

[Northman]

but his entire body of work doesn't consist of a long enough career to be considered a HOF back.


Do you consider LT a HOF back?

[bengaaaaals1688]

But if you concede that Davis' injury was a freak accident. Then you are saying that luck and luck alone is keeping him off HOF considerations.
Sayers does not belong is irrelevant because he is. So either there are standards or they are not. And if they are not, the argument ends with either your personal feeling or the acts of God. Neither particularly rational points or do you think they are?
Either way, there was nothing he could actually do to improve his chances.

I don't have a clue why Davis was hurt, there are just too many factors that we would have no idea about. The precedent shouldn't exist, with the precedent, yeah put him in because they screwed up and put Sayers in... My only contention is that he doesn't deserve to be in, in a normal situation.


Do you consider LT a HOF back?

I'll preface this by saying, LT has had a longer career of elite play than TD had... But no I do not. He still hasn't done enough.

[Poet]

Do you consider LT a HOF back?

http://www.nfl.com/players/ladainiantomlinson/profile?id=TOM683150

He is already very very close. At this point, I would say no, but barely. 122 TDs in that time frame is a long term production accomplishment that he has made.

[Northman]

I'll preface this by saying, LT has had a longer career of elite play than TD had... But no I do not. He still hasn't done enough.


Well at least your staying consistent but i will point out that TD has still achieved more than LT despite having a shorter career. The only thing that TD has not acheived that LT has is total yardage. Thats it.

*Edit* And total TD's

[haroldthebarrel]

I don't have a clue why Davis was hurt, there are just too many factors that we would have no idea about. The precedent shouldn't exist, with the precedent, yeah put him in because they screwed up and put Sayers in... My only contention is that he doesn't deserve to be in, in a normal situation.



I'll preface this by saying, LT has had a longer career of elite play than TD had... But no I do not. He still hasn't done enough.

But what are these factors. We know he got injured by his own teammate trying to help on an interception. I dont remember the play so people have to help me, but did he even see him.

And as far as LT goes. He has been a top five or better back for at least six season. If that isnt dominance I dont know what is.
Had I have a vote, there would be no doubt in my mind he should be in should he get injured. I think I even would have put him in if he retired.
He would not be as good as Sanders was, but he sure as hell was as good or better than Emmith Smith for six seasons.

[Northman]

Davis: 6 Years

Rushing Yards 7,607
Average 4.6
Touchdowns 60
Receptions 169
Yards 1,280
Receiving TD 5

* 3x Pro Bowl selection (1996, 1997, 1998)
* 4x All-Pro selection (1995, 1996, 1997, 1998)
* 2x Super Bowl champion (XXXII, XXXIII)
* NFL 1990s All-Decade Team
* 1998 NFL MVP
* 1998 PFWA NFL MVP
* 2x NFL Offensive Player of the Year (1996, 1998)
* 1996 UPI AFL-AFC Player of the Year
* 1997 Super Bowl MVP


LT: 8 Years

Rushing yards 11,420
Rushing average 4.4
Rushing TDs 120
Receptions 497
Receiving yards 3,704
Receiving TDs 15

# 5x Pro Bowl selection (2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007)
# 4x First-team All-Pro selection (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007)
# 2x Second-team All-Pro (2002, 2003)
# AP NFL MVP (2006)
# PFWA NFL MVP (2006)

[bengaaaaals1688]

But what are these factors. We know he got injured by his own teammate trying to help on an interception. I dont remember the play so people have to help me, but did he even see him.

And as far as LT goes. He has been a top five or better back for at least six season. If that isnt dominance I dont know what is.
Had I have a vote, there would be no doubt in my mind he should be in should he get injured. I think I even would have put him in if he retired.
He would not be as good as Sanders was, but he sure as hell was as good or better than Emmith Smith for six seasons.

There are a lot of factors... Something may have happened the week before that he didn't even pay attention to because it seemed like it was nothing, and it led to what was completely unexpected, it could have been festering over time, he ignored it, and when he got hit it was worse than ever expected. Or, it could just be a freak accident that wouldn't happen more than once in 1,000,000 times... You never know.

He has been a top 5 back, but again, statistics matter as well... His stats, while good-great, aren't exactly "elite" yet. Yeah he broke 10,000 yards already, and has 122 TD's, but I'd like to see him do more and be able to carry his team, as well.

The biggest edge LT has... Is that he also has a lot of receptions and receiving yards.

[MOtorboat]

Terrell Davis was the most dominant player in the league over a four-year span. He deserves to be a Hall of Famer.

He won't be because he's a Bronco, an idiots from the coasts are too stupid to realize how good he was.

[haroldthebarrel]

Lets sum up the arguments to Davis HOF bid.

1. He was dominant.
2 He won individual honors
3. He did not have the longevity.

3- He did not have longevity either through his own fault or through an act of God.
3a If he could have done something about it, then he should not be in.
3b If it was an act of God, luck or lack thereof is the sole reason he should not be in.

As for Sayers.
1 He was good enough to get in despite not having longevity.
1a if he creates standards then people like Davis and Easley and Shannon Sharpe has an argument.
1b he did not set a standard. He was an exception to the rule.
An exception that does not apply to the three players mentioned.
1c He set a standard but that standard has since been revoked.

[MOtorboat]

Let's try this again.

The NFL...in its current form has been in existence for 46 years. Terrell Davis was the most dominant player in four of those 46 years.

That's 9 percent of the NFL's existing years where he was the most dominant player in the league.

Any ******* questions?

[bengaaaaals1688]

Let's try this again.

The NFL...in its current form has been in existence for 46 years. Terrell Davis was the most dominant player in four of those 46 years.

That's 9 percent of the NFL's existing years where he was the most dominant player in the league.

Any ******* questions?

So Chad Johnson belongs in the HOF??

[MOtorboat]

So Chad Johnson belongs in the HOF??

Chad Johnson was the most dominant player in the league the last four years?

I'd love to see you continue that argument, lol...

[Northman]

So Chad Johnson belongs in the HOF??

Does he hold 2 rings, a SB MVP, and the all[-time receiving title?

[haroldthebarrel]

There are a lot of factors... Something may have happened the week before that he didn't even pay attention to because it seemed like it was nothing, and it led to what was completely unexpected, it could have been festering over time, he ignored it, and when he got hit it was worse than ever expected. Or, it could just be a freak accident that wouldn't happen more than once in 1,000,000 times... You never know.

He has been a top 5 back, but again, statistics matter as well... His stats, while good-great, aren't exactly "elite" yet. Yeah he broke 10,000 yards already, and has 122 TD's, but I'd like to see him do more and be able to carry his team, as well.

The biggest edge LT has... Is that he also has a lot of receptions and receiving yards.

Now you are basically talking about acts of God.
There could be factors, but either we dont know about them or only God does. You of all people can see how circumstantial and completely unprovable that statement is.
You never know you say, but apparently we know enough that he should not be in?
If there are factual reasons why Davis should not be in, then there has to be arguments created by these.
You have a stance that he should not be in, but I cannot for the help of me see how you can make a rational argument with any facts available saying anything but that the only thing that we know of that keeps Davis out of the HOF is "an act of God".

[bengaaaaals1688]

Chad Johnson was the most dominant player in the league the last four years?

I'd love to see you continue that argument, lol...

The last four years?? I didn't say the last four years, but again (as I have stated time and time again in this thread), he is the only player in history to lead his conference in receiving yards 4 years in a row. I will also state, again, that I do not believe he belongs in it, but your logic in your last post says that he does belong there.


Does he hold 2 rings, a SB MVP, and the all[-time receiving title?

I was going with the logic in MB's post. However, no he doesn't because he has always been on garbage teams, and TD doesn't hold the all-time rushing title, so I'm not sure what you're point is with that one.

[Poet]

Well at least your staying consistent but i will point out that TD has still achieved more than LT despite having a shorter career. The only thing that TD has not acheived that LT has is total yardage. Thats it.

*Edit* And total TD's

If you put LT on your SB teams I doubt it changes much.

[Poet]

Chad Johnson was the most dominant player in the league the last four years?

I'd love to see you continue that argument, lol...

His point is that CJ achieved a damn big career milestone by being the only player in NFL history to lead his conference in receiving yards 4 years in a row. He is one of the best yardage wideouts the game has seen.

By your own logic CJ would have been a wideout worthy of the HOF the second he broke got that record.

[MOtorboat]

The last four years?? I didn't say the last four years, but again (as I have stated time and time again in this thread), he is the only player in history to lead his conference in receiving yards 4 years in a row. I will also state, again, that I do not believe he belongs in it, but your logic in your last post says that he does belong there.

I said the most dominant player in the league, not the best statistical player at his position.

There is a massive difference, that you apparently, just don't get.

[MOtorboat]

His point is that CJ achieved a damn big career milestone by being the only player in NFL history to lead his conference in receiving yards 4 years in a row. He is one of the best yardage wideouts the game has seen.

By your own logic CJ would have been a wideout worthy of the HOF the second he broke got that record.

No, that's not what my logic says at all. Apparently, both of you missed the point.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Now you are basically talking about acts of God.
There could be factors, but either we dont know about them or only God does. You of all people can see how circumstantial and completely unprovable that statement is.
You never know you say, but apparently we know enough that he should not be in?
If there are factual reasons why Davis should not be in, then there has to be arguments created by these.
You have a stance that he should not be in, but I cannot for the help of me see how you can make a rational argument with any facts available saying anything but that the only thing that we know of that keeps Davis out of the HOF is "an act of God".

I never said it was anything but circumstantial. I have only ever said that it's his lack of longevity that makes me believe he doesn't belong there. I also never tried to explain why he was hurt until you asked me to. I LOVE TD, I love watching highlights of him, I love the way he ran, but I do not believe he belongs in the HOF. Why is that so difficult to understand, or accept??

[bengaaaaals1688]

I said the most dominant player in the league, not the best statistical player at his position.

There is a massive difference, that you apparently, just don't get.

He dominated the league each of those years. You don't pile up that type of yardage without being dominant.

[Poet]

Terrell Davis was the most dominant player in the league over a four-year span. He deserves to be a Hall of Famer.

He won't be because he's a Bronco, an idiots from the coasts are too stupid to realize how good he was.

Over a three year span. His 1100 yard season is not dominant.

He won't get in because he did not play long enough. I don't believe that sportswriters dislike the Broncos and refuse to vote in their players MB.

[MOtorboat]

Over a three year span. His 1100 yard season is not dominant.

He won't get in because he did not play long enough. I don't believe that sportswriters dislike the Broncos and refuse to vote in their players MB.

Then, I ask you again, why is Gale Sayers a hall of famer?

[bengaaaaals1688]

Then, I ask you again, why is Gale Sayers a hall of famer?

We have both already stated we don't believe he should be.

[MOtorboat]

We have both already stated we don't believe he should be.

But he is.

[Poet]

No, that's not what my logic says at all. Apparently, both of you missed the point.

Your are saying that he should get in because of a brief stint of dominance.

Chad Johnson had a stint of dominance as well. I am getting your point, I am just applying it elsewhere and the result of it is something that you don't like.

[MOtorboat]

Your are saying that he should get in because of a brief stint of dominance.

Chad Johnson had a stint of dominance as well. I am getting your point, I am just applying it elsewhere and the result of it is something that you don't like.

The "dominance" isn't even comparable.

No, you aren't getting it at all if you think Chad Johnson's "dominance" is the same as Terrell Davis'.

[Northman]

The last four years?? I didn't say the last four years, but again (as I have stated time and time again in this thread), he is the only player in history to lead his conference in receiving yards 4 years in a row. I will also state, again, that I do not believe he belongs in it, but your logic in your last post says that he does belong there.



I was going with the logic in MB's post. However, no he doesn't because he has always been on garbage teams, and TD doesn't hold the all-time rushing title, so I'm not sure what you're point is with that one.

The point with that one is a personal accolade of being 1 of only 5 total backs to achieve a major record. CJ has 4 years as the leading receiver in his conference. Great, good for him thats a start. But he has a ways to go before he can be measured up to even the top 20 receivers of alltime. You keep coming back to that one lone Johnson stat but Davis has quite a resume compared to a guy like CJ. Its really apples and oranges with those comparisons.

[bengaaaaals1688]

But he is.

Because the voters at the time became enamored with his ability to do things they had never seen at that time. He moved differently, and quicker, than any player had before him, and they let it get to their heads. Then they felt bad that his career was cut short, and there was everything with his friend Brian (I forget the last name), so they put him in.

[bengaaaaals1688]

The point with that one is a personal accolade of being 1 of only 5 total backs to achieve a major record. CJ has 4 years as the leading receiver in his conference. Great, good for him thats a start. But he has a ways to go before he can be measured up to even the top 20 receivers of alltime. You keep coming back to that one lone Johnson stat but Davis has quite a resume compared to a guy like CJ. Its really apples and oranges with those comparisons.

I don't compare Johnson to Davis... But you guys keep pulling up Davis' 2,000 yard season as what should put him into the HOF regardless of other things, and in that respect what Johnson did is comparable.

[haroldthebarrel]

I never said it was anything but circumstantial. I have only ever said that it's his lack of longevity that makes me believe he doesn't belong there. I also never tried to explain why he was hurt until you asked me to. I LOVE TD, I love watching highlights of him, I love the way he ran, but I do not believe he belongs in the HOF. Why is that so difficult to understand, or accept??

Because the lack of longevity ends up with the argument basically saying it was an act of God that prevented him.
So if you or anybody argues for longevity, then you are also saying that luck has a big part a career.
Luck is something you cannot to anything about, thus the argument remains that the lack of luck is what keeps Davis out of the HOF.

I think that argument is circumstantial, and it does not give any player a shot to really personally influence a HOF career unless they are lucky. It is and will remain founded upon evidence that is at best unclear, at worst non existant. Or the evidence against his career begins and ends with "Lord only knows".
I think that argument is at best emotional, or it is poorly founded.
I sure as hell think luck is a pretty poor excuse to keep one player in, others players out.

[MOtorboat]

Because the voters at the time became enamored with his ability to do things they had never seen at that time. He moved differently, and quicker, than any player had before him, and they let it get to their heads. Then they felt bad that his career was cut short, and there was everything with his friend Brian (I forget the last name), so they put him in.

Brian Piccolo.

Its still not an excuse. Terrell Davis' accomplishments are greater than those in the Hall of Fame, yet he's not in there, and you can't explain it.

Were you even old enough to watch Terrell Davis?

I know King wasn't.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Because the lack of longevity ends up with the argument basically saying it was an act of God that prevented him.
So if you or anybody argues for longevity, then you are also saying that luck has a big part a career.
Luck is something you cannot to anything about, thus the argument remains that the lack of luck is what keeps Davis out of the HOF.

I think that argument is circumstantial, and it does not give any player a shot to really personally influence a HOF career unless they are lucky.
I think that argument is at best emotional, or it is poorly founded.
I sure as hell think luck is a pretty poor excuse to keep one player in, others players out.

There's an old saying... I'd rather be lucky than good. Luck plays a factor in almost everything that happens, sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's good, TD had bad.

[MOtorboat]

I don't compare Johnson to Davis... But you guys keep pulling up Davis' 2,000 yard season as what should put him into the HOF regardless of other things, and in that respect what Johnson did is comparable.

Yeah. It should. Chad Johnson's accomplishments aren't comparable.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Brian Piccolo.

Its still not an excuse. Terrell Davis' accomplishments are greater than those in the Hall of Fame, yet he's not in there, and you can't explain it.

Were you even old enough to watch Terrell Davis?

I know King wasn't.

I can explain it... Most of those in which his yardage is better played in a different era and weren't around to even possibly get some of the other accolades (SB rings and MVP).

I didn't make it an excuse, you asked why he's in it, I told you why he's in it. That is more than likely exactly what went through the voter's minds.

I was young when watching TD, but I was old enough, and I remember him fully. I have also watched many many highlights of him, and watched replays of games. One of my favorite RBs of all time, up there with Payton, Sanders, and Alstott (remember I said favorite).

[haroldthebarrel]

There's an old saying... I'd rather be lucky than good. Luck plays a factor in almost everything that happens, sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's good, TD had bad.

So then you concede that luck and luck alone is keeping TD out of the HOF.
You could have conceded that a lot earlier. That was all I wanted to prove.
You accept it, I think it is a poor argument.
It is a poor argument because then it is peoples feelings and not reason that governs who or specifically TD not being in the HOF.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Yeah. It should. Chad Johnson's accomplishments aren't comparable.

That specific accomplishment is. It has never been done, that is precisely what makes it comparable. Not even the best WR of all time was able to do it, so it's an accomplishment that deserves as much credit and testament as a 2,000 yard season from a RB.

[Northman]

I don't compare Johnson to Davis... But you guys keep pulling up Davis' 2,000 yard season as what should put him into the HOF regardless of other things, and in that respect what Johnson did is comparable.

Not true, a few posts back i posted a comparison between LT and TD's careers. TD accomplished quite a bit more (in terms of substance i.e titles etc) compared to LT who has had a longer career with his own fair share or nice stats. Thus proving that length of time in the NFL doesnt equate to how great a NFL back is. The funny thing is when you look at people's rankings of the top 10 backs of alltime sometimes TD makes it in the list and sometimes he just gets a honorable mention. Furthermore, in a lot of the lists ive looked at Sayers still makes the top 10 A LOT. Now, i know you guys have been writing off the people who voted him in but there are still quite a few people who come up with good arguements as too why Sayers belongs. And at the end of the day if Gale still belongs than most certainly TD belongs. The stat of 2000 yards is not the only thing that makes TD a HOF. There are plenty of other stats and accolades that he acheived in that time that does the talking for him.

[bengaaaaals1688]

So then you concede that luck and luck alone is keeping TD out of the HOF.
You could have conceded that a lot earlier. That was all I wanted to prove.
You accept it, I think it is a poor argument.
It is a poor argument because then it is peoples feelings and not reason that governs who or specifically TD not being in the HOF.

I think luck was part of it, it had to be, it's a part of almost everything.

And I would LOVE to see a player like TD in the HOF, that is exactly the kinda player that should be (not a Michael Irvin), so no it isn't personal feelings.

[MOtorboat]

I can explain it... Most of those in which his yardage is better played in a different era and weren't around to even possibly get some of the other accolades (SB rings and MVP).

I didn't make it an excuse, you asked why he's in it, I told you why he's in it. That is more than likely exactly what went through the voter's minds.

I was young when watching TD, but I was old enough, and I remember him fully. I have also watched many many highlights of him, and watched replays of games. One of my favorite RBs of all time, up there with Payton, Sanders, and Alstott (remember I said favorite).

If you honestly put Alstott in the same sentence with Payton and Sanders, there's not much I can help you with.

Chad Johnson's records were in a different era where receiving yardage is over-rated, and Terrell Davis did something that has only been done by five other people, not to mention he won two Super Bowls, won a Super Bowl MVP and is the greatest post-season running back who lives.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Not true, a few posts back i posted a comparison between LT and TD's careers. TD accomplished quite a bit more (in terms of substance i.e titles etc) compared to LT who has had a longer career with his own fair share or nice stats. Thus proving that length of time in the NFL doesnt equate to how great a NFL back is. The funny thing is when you look at people's rankings of the top 10 backs of alltime sometimes TD makes it in the list and sometimes he just gets a honorable mention. Furthermore, in a lot of the lists ive looked at Sayers still makes the top 10 A LOT. Now, i know you guys have been writing off the people who voted him in but there are still quite a few people who come up with good arguements as too why Sayers belongs. And at the end of the day if Gale still belongs than most certainly TD belongs. The stat of 2000 yards is not the only thing that makes TD a HOF. There are plenty of other stats and accolades that he acheived in that time that does the talking for him.

I also said that LT doesn't deserve HOF, yet.

There can be a good argument, and I outlined it. He revolutionized what a RB does, and he was a kick returner as well... He was the most electrifying player to ever be seen at the time of his career.

And I conceded that IF Sayers belongs, TD belongs, but I don't think Sayers belongs either.

[Northman]

Not even the best WR of all time was able to do it, so it's an accomplishment that deserves as much credit and testament as a 2,000 yard season from a RB.

But the best WR off alltime holds other records along with titles whereas Johnson does not. As i said, CJ has a long way to go to seperate himself from a lot of the greats. There are plenty of RB's in the HOF who may have been better than TD but TD did manage to seperate himself from the rest of the league in MANY ways that puts him in HOF.

[Midnight Blue]

Yep, a Super Bowl MVP and 2 rings helps solidify TD's legacy as a HOF back.

... and a league MVP in 1998 as well... plus being one of a very small group of RBs who rushed for 2000 yards in a single season...

[bengaaaaals1688]

If you honestly put Alstott in the same sentence with Payton and Sanders, there's not much I can help you with.

Chad Johnson's records were in a different era where receiving yardage is over-rated, and Terrell Davis did something that has only been done by five other people, not to mention he won two Super Bowls, won a Super Bowl MVP and is the greatest post-season running back who lives.

I said favorite, I even specified favorite. I didn't say he's one of the best all time, I said he's one of my favorite to watch because of the way he runs.

I know what Davis did, but you can't change the basis of your logic to suit your argument. You're basis is that he did something that doesn't happen often, and that makes it so good, Chad did something that never happens, and that makes it so good. And Chad doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, so I'm not sure what your point was. I'm not arguing that Chad does.

[MOtorboat]

I also said that LT doesn't deserve HOF, yet.

There can be a good argument, and I outlined it. He revolutionized what a RB does, and he was a kick returner as well... He was the most electrifying player to ever be seen at the time of his career.

And I conceded that IF Sayers belongs, TD belongs, but I don't think Sayers belongs either.

LT doesn't deserve to be a HOF'er?

Sorry.

This conversation is done. You aren't letting in any current players, and you're reasoning sucks ass.

[bengaaaaals1688]

But the best WR off alltime holds other records along with titles whereas Johnson does not. As i said, CJ has a long way to go to seperate himself from a lot of the greats. There are plenty of RB's in the HOF who may have been better than TD but TD did manage to seperate himself from the rest of the league in MANY ways that puts him in HOF.

He has a ridiculously long way to separate himself and actually be in the top 10 or top 20 of all time, but you'll never see me say differently until he actually does it.

TD did separate himself in a bunch of ways, and had he played longer he very possibly could have become the best RB of all time, but from what his stats say, he didn't set himself apart enough to be in the HOF.

[Northman]

I think luck was part of it, it had to be, it's a part of almost everything.

And I would LOVE to see a player like TD in the HOF, that is exactly the kinda player that should be (not a Michael Irvin), so no it isn't personal feelings.

Well, i think Irvin does belong but i get the jist of what your saying. TD is the consumate team player and a guy of high character to go along with all his other outstanding acheivements.

[bengaaaaals1688]

LT doesn't deserve to be a HOF'er?

Sorry.

This conversation is done. You aren't letting in any current players, and you're reasoning sucks ass.

LT hasn't done enough to be a HOFer. He has never had to be the backbone of his team and he's been mostly a no show in the playoffs when they have been there... Great RB, not HOFer just yet. Close as hell, but not exactly there.

[Northman]

TD did separate himself in a bunch of ways, and had he played longer he very possibly could have become the best RB of all time, but from what his stats say, he didn't set himself apart enough to be in the HOF.

Unfortuantely man, comparing what he did in less time to what LT has done proves otherwise. The stats work against you here. Dont know what to tell you.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Well, i think Irvin does belong but i get the jist of what your saying. TD is the consumate team player and a guy of high character to go along with all his other outstanding acheivements.

Statistically and what he did on the field, of course he deserves it, but you got the rest of what I meant anyway.

[Poet]

Brian Piccolo.

Its still not an excuse. Terrell Davis' accomplishments are greater than those in the Hall of Fame, yet he's not in there, and you can't explain it.

Were you even old enough to watch Terrell Davis?

I know King wasn't.

That is why Gale is in. Piccolo. Yup, I agree.

I wasn't old enough, but I can breakdown the numbers and do enough research to have a legit opinion.

He does not belong in the hall. Gale Sayers does not belong in the hall. Because he is in does not mean TD should be in. It means they should not repeat a mistake.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Unfortuantely man, comparing what he did in less time to what LT has done proves otherwise. The stats work against you here. Dont know what to tell you.

And that fact is why I don't think LT belongs. He hasn't even been able to fully separate himself from someone who only had 3 great seasons, and one average season.

[Northman]

I cant believe we hijacked this thread this far. lmao

[Poet]

LT doesn't deserve to be a HOF'er?

Sorry.

This conversation is done. You aren't letting in any current players, and you're reasoning sucks ass.

He said right now. At his moment there is a strong argument for him to be in. I want to get a little more out of him.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid, or illogical. I can understand your disagreement, but I don't get why you end up being so hostile. We are all friends here.

[Northman]

And that fact is why I don't think LT belongs. He hasn't even been able to fully separate himself from someone who only had 3 great seasons, and one average season.

Fair enough, but i think when all is said and done LT will get in (unless something tragic happens with his career from here on out) as he has been the most dominant back in this decade. He's already reached certain plateau's that if he gets back on track will break Smith's records.

[bengaaaaals1688]

I cant believe we hijacked this thread this far. lmao

A Cutler-Rivers thread that now has at least 10 pages of TD HOF consideration... I like it.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Fair enough, but i think when all is said and done LT will get in (unless something tragic happens with his career from here on out) as he has been the most dominant back in this decade. He's already reached certain plateau's that if he gets back on track will break Smith's records.

That's what I agree on. I think for his entire career he'll have it. Just not at this moment.

[Northman]

He said right now. At his moment there is a strong argument for him to be in. I want to get a little more out of him.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid, or illogical. I can understand your disagreement, but I don't get why you end up being so hostile. We are all friends here.


Frustration. I have no problem with you or Bengal but i do feel like im talking in circles. What i see as a clear presentation of why he should be in does not translate to you or Bengal or to your philosphies regarding HOF membership. Like John, i watched TD totally tear apart the league and accomplish so much so it does get frustrating listening to people who dont see it the same way. Doesnt make you guys bad or anything but it does hit home because of who he is and what he has done both in the NFL and for this franchise.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Frustration. I have no problem with you or Bengal but i do feel like im talking in circles. What i see as a clear presentation of why he should be in does not translate to you or Bengal or to your philosphies regarding HOF membership. Like John, i watched TD totally tear apart the league and accomplish so much so it does get frustrating listening to people who dont see it the same way. Doesnt make you guys bad or anything but it does hit home because of who he is and what he has done both in the NFL and this franchise.

I fully understand why you guys think he belongs in the HOF, and I can also see the argument. I'm also not gonna lie and if I was you guys or TD had done the stuff with the Bengals, I'd probably be doing the same exact thing as you guys.:lol:

[MOtorboat]

He said right now. At his moment there is a strong argument for him to be in. I want to get a little more out of him.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid, or illogical. I can understand your disagreement, but I don't get why you end up being so hostile. We are all friends here.

I can understand why TD isn't in the Hall of Fame if you're dumb enough to think LT hasn't done enough to be a Hall of Famer.

[Poet]

Frustration. I have no problem with you or Bengal but i do feel like im talking in circles. What i see as a clear presentation of why he should be in does not translate to you or Bengal or to your philosphies regarding HOF membership. Like John, i watched TD totally tear apart the league and accomplish so much so it does get frustrating listening to people who dont see it the same way. Doesnt make you guys bad or anything but it does hit home because of who he is and what he has done both in the NFL and for this franchise.

The problem is that you have legit arguments. We also have them, what drives me crazy is at times people act like someone who has a different view than them is wrong. I know it's subjective, and I post like it. But, if you guys don't think our stances have just as much validity as yours then some group therapy and hugs are needed.

[Poet]

I can understand why TD isn't in the Hall of Fame if you're dumb enough to think LT hasn't done enough to be a Hall of Famer.
That was childish of me. I apologize.

[Northman]

The problem is that you have legit arguments. We also have them, what drives me crazy is at times people act like someone who has a different view than them is wrong. I know it's subjective, and I post like it. But, if you guys don't think our stances have just as much validity as yours then some group therapy and hugs are needed.

True, but i think it gets further compounded because of the lack of Bronco's already in the Hall. There are a lot of problems with the HOF no doubt and there are a slew of players that either should or should not be in there. The fact that there is almost nil when it comes to Broncos is just deplorable.

[MOtorboat]

Once again I am dumb because I disagree with you. I see how that works. Several times on these boards I have seen members say that if LT gets in they will protest if TD does not get in. So, I guess that must mean they are stupid to.

I like you MB, but if someone disagrees with you and they stick to it you get butt hurt. My god, your a grown man.

Tomlinson is a hall of famer. You're argument is dumb if you think he's not.

There's your clarification, so it's not a "personal attack."

The argument is dumb. (and extremely flawed)

LT is a hall of famer. I don't think I need to be any more clear, and frankly, I think that is a fact.

[Midnight Blue]

Doesn't TD also own a record for consecutive postseason 100+ yard rushing games? I think he does.

Perhaps we could get a mod to split the TD/HOF discussion pages into a new thread...

[bengaaaaals1688]

Tomlinson is a hall of famer. You're argument is dumb if you think he's not.

There's your clarification, so it's not a "personal attack."

The argument is dumb. (and extremely flawed)

LT is a hall of famer. I don't think I need to be any more clear, and frankly, I think that is a fact.

Keywords are bolded. YOU THINK, it's a fact. All of what we are arguing is what WE THINK is a fact, but it's nothing more than opinion in reality.

[Poet]

Tomlinson is a hall of famer. You're argument is dumb if you think he's not.

There's your clarification, so it's not a "personal attack."

The argument is dumb. (and extremely flawed)

LT is a hall of famer. I don't think I need to be any more clear, and frankly, I think that is a fact.

Ok, so by saying he is a HOFer he is a HOFer? That is a logical assessment if I have ever seen one.

I don't think he is a hall of fame RB right now because I want to see the rest of his career. If he completely tanks and is garbage for the rest of it it could sway me.

I factor in that he plays in the worst time frame for defense ever. I think that a lot of today's numbers are inflated.

Oh, and it isn't a fact because he isn't a hall of famer. Since you want to get technical on this, I can prove that TD is not a HOFer for sure, he isn't in the hall. Semantics are weak when you use them like that, but when in Rome.......

[MOtorboat]

Doesn't TD also own a record for consecutive postseason 100+ yard rushing games? I think he does.

Perhaps we could get a mod to split the TD/HOF discussion pages into a new thread...

He does. But there's not a lot you can discuss when the people you're discussing with think that LT isn't a hall of fame back.

[Poet]

True, but i think it gets further compounded because of the lack of Bronco's already in the Hall. There are a lot of problems with the HOF no doubt and there are a slew of players that either should or should not be in there. The fact that there is almost nil when it comes to Broncos is just deplorable.

So because you guys have a lack of HOF players (whether right or wrong) I should be cool with watching people act like I am just spewing nonsense, especially when I am giving you a well thought out argument that is apparently good enough to go on for how many pages?

[bengaaaaals1688]

He does. But there's not a lot you can discuss when the people you're discussing with think that LT isn't a hall of fame back.

There's a lot you can discuss, but you don't have the belief that it is even slightly possible for someone to have a legit argument that disagrees with yours, so it makes you think you can't discuss anything. Fact is that a discussion is usually gonna end up having more than one opinion involved, and if you can't deal with that, then you should probably stay out of smack.

[Poet]

He does. But there's not a lot you can discuss when the people you're discussing with think that LT isn't a hall of fame back.

How do you get so spiteful when people disagree with you? Did you attend a workshop or a seminar? Really, its impressive.

[Northman]

Doesn't TD also own a record for consecutive postseason 100+ yard rushing games? I think he does.

Perhaps we could get a mod to split the TD/HOF discussion pages into a new thread...


Yea, i was going to send a PM to one of them to do that. Its way beyond hijacked now. :lol:

[MOtorboat]

How do you get so spiteful when people disagree with you? Did you attend a workshop or a seminar? Really, its impressive.

When I realize that there is no debate about something, when someone sets an extreme, like LT not being a hall of famer, to prove their point that Terrell Davis shouldn't be a hall of famer, the conversation is over.

If you truly believe that Tomlinson is not a hall of fame running back, then the conversation about Davis is utterly worthless.

[bengaaaaals1688]

When I realize that there is no debate about something, when someone sets an extreme, like LT not being a hall of famer, to prove their point that Terrell Davis shouldn't be a hall of famer, the conversation is over.

If you truly believe that Tomlinson is not a hall of fame running back, then the conversation about Davis is utterly worthless.

Tomlinson PROBABLY will be, but for all we know he could tank the next 4 years of his career and not move his stats any further forward, and then he may not be a HOFer.

[MOtorboat]

Tomlinson PROBABLY will be, but for all we know he could tank the next 4 years of his career and not move his stats any further forward, and then he may not be a HOFer.

You can honestly look at Tomlinson's career and say he's not a hall of famer?

I'm just stunned.

No wonder you don't think TD is a HOFer.

Just curious, what does someone have to do to reach the Hall of Fame in your eyes, because both of you are setting the bar a little high.

[Poet]

When I realize that there is no debate about something, when someone sets an extreme, like LT not being a hall of famer, to prove their point that Terrell Davis shouldn't be a hall of famer, the conversation is over.

If you truly believe that Tomlinson is not a hall of fame running back, then the conversation about Davis is utterly worthless.

Let's not lie, you were getting pissy well beyond that. I didn't set an extreme, I said at this moment, right now, this very second I don't think he is a HOF RB because I want to see how the rest of his career plays out. If he plays for three or four more years and is complete arse then it could affect my opinion. I also like to sit back a bit and look at a career afterwards. But nope, I am stupid because I disagree with you.

MB can you help me out? Somtimes I crap myself and get disorientated. I was playing backyard football the other day and lead my receiver into an oncoming firetruck. Sometimes I eat bricks for breakfeast and shatter my teeth before realizing what happened. Help me please.

[MOtorboat]

I didn't set an extreme, I said at this moment, right now, this very second I don't think he is a HOF RB because I want to see how the rest of his career plays out.

That's setting an extreme. Just so you know.

[Northman]

Ok, so by saying he is a HOFer he is a HOFer? That is a logical assessment if I have ever seen one.

I don't think he is a hall of fame RB right now because I want to see the rest of his career. If he completely tanks and is garbage for the rest of it it could sway me.

I factor in that he plays in the worst time frame for defense ever. I think that a lot of today's numbers are inflated.

Oh, and it isn't a fact because he isn't a hall of famer. Since you want to get technical on this, I can prove that TD is not a HOFer for sure, he isn't in the hall. Semantics are weak when you use them like that, but when in Rome.......


When it comes to LT i break it down like this.

If LT gets back on track and eclipse's Emmitt's records but wins no titles i compare that to Dan Marino and he should get into the HOF.

Now the flipside, lets say LT gets traded to another team and although his stats arent as great as they once were if he manages to get a ring or two and then decides to retire i still think he deserves it.

The only way i wouldnt consider him is if he crashes from here without acheiving anymore accolades, rings, etc.


So even though TD's career was cut short he still acheived everything necessary to be granted HOF status. IMO

I can concede with King that Lewis can be excluded mainly because aside from his 2,000 yds and SB ring his decline was self inflicted because of poor judgement followed by an injury (which wasnt his fault). But, because of what Jamal did achieve he still enters the discussion for HOF consideration, especially since he is still playing and if he manages to regain what he had with another title it could add to his resume. Right now, he is more of a doubt but i believe TD has accomplished more than enough to get in.

[Poet]

That's setting an extreme. Just so you know.

It is because the mighty and infallible MB says so.

[Poet]

When it comes to LT i break it down like this.

If LT gets back on track and eclipse's Emmitt's records but wins no titles i compare that to Dan Marino and he should get into the HOF.

Now the flipside, lets say LT gets traded to another team and although his stats arent as great as they once were if he manages to get a ring or two and then decides to retire i still think he deserves it.

The only way i wouldnt consider him is if he crashes from here without acheiving anymore accolades, rings, etc.


So even though TD's career was cut short he still acheived everything necessary to be granted HOF status. IMO

I can concede with King that Lewis can be excluded mainly because aside from his 2,000 yds and SB ring his decline was self inflicted because of poor judgement followed by an injury (which wasnt his fault). But, because of what Jamal did achieve he still enters the discussion for HOF consideration, especially since he is still playing and if he manages to regain what he had with another title it could add to his resume. Right now, he is more of a doubt but i believe TD has accomplished more than enough to get in.

Which is fine. All I have been saying is that I believe a HOF career requires some longevity, more than one big accalode and big numbers.

Apparently I am stupid for thinking so. Oh damn, I accidentally tried to eat my thumb again.

[Northman]

Which is fine. All I have been saying is that I believe a HOF career requires some longevity, more than one big accalode and big numbers.

Apparently I am stupid for thinking so. Oh damn, I accidentally tried to eat my thumb again.

I dont think your dumb but again, frustration. You would be hard pressed to find many on here who wouldnt think that TD deserves the hall. Aside from GMoney of course. And although i do hold some bias i truly believe he has done enough to be there.

[Poet]

I dont think your dumb but again, frustration. You would be hard pressed to find many on here who wouldnt think that TD deserves the hall. Aside from GMoney of course. And although i do hold some bias i truly believe he has done enough to be there.

Could you PM me your post one word at a time? This is just sensory overload, and I am getting dizzy at your words and talky talky. Oh look, a bag, I like bags.

[bengaaaaals1688]

When it comes to LT i break it down like this.

If LT gets back on track and eclipse's Emmitt's records but wins no titles i compare that to Dan Marino and he should get into the HOF.

Now the flipside, lets say LT gets traded to another team and although his stats arent as great as they once were if he manages to get a ring or two and then decides to retire i still think he deserves it.

The only way i wouldnt consider him is if he crashes from here without acheiving anymore accolades, rings, etc.


So even though TD's career was cut short he still acheived everything necessary to be granted HOF status. IMO

I can concede with King that Lewis can be excluded mainly because aside from his 2,000 yds and SB ring his decline was self inflicted because of poor judgement followed by an injury (which wasnt his fault). But, because of what Jamal did achieve he still enters the discussion for HOF consideration, especially since he is still playing and if he manages to regain what he had with another title it could add to his resume. Right now, he is more of a doubt but i believe TD has accomplished more than enough to get in.

That is a great breakdown, and I pretty much fully agree with it. It may be unlikely, but there is a reason why most intelligent people wait for a career to be over to decide on whether or not they are HOF caliber.

[frauschieze]

Hey guys.......

Cutler is better than Rivers. Do you agree? Check yes or no.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Hey guys.......

Cutler is better than Rivers. Do you agree? Check yes or no.

How do you check yes or no, and what do yes and no mean?? You must explain everything perfectly to King and I for we are nothing but blithering idiots who don't know our eyes from our fingers.

[Poet]

Hey guys.......

Cutler is better than Rivers. Do you agree? Check yes or no.

I'm dumb as hell, so, I guess I will check yes for bottle caps cause their neato cool!!!!!!

[frauschieze]

How do you check yes or no, and what do yes and no mean?? You must explain everything perfectly to King and I for we are nothing but blithering idiots who don't know our eyes from our fingers.

Your fingers are the things that you use to pick your nose. Your eyes are what you use when I post 'special pictures'. And that means you like Cutler. Thanks for your answer. :drinking:

[bengaaaaals1688]

Your fingers are the things that you use to pick your nose. Your eyes are what you use when I post 'special pictures'. And that means you like Cutler. Thanks for your answer. :drinking:

Thank you very much for clearing these things up for me, and since Cutler sounds like a knife, I like your thinking.

I think I need more 'special pictures' in order to ensure I truly know the difference between my eyes and fingers, though.:D

[Poet]

Your fingers are the things that you use to pick your nose. Your eyes are what you use when I post 'special pictures'. And that means you like Cutler. Thanks for your answer. :drinking:

Noses? I pick noses like roses with hoses and chickenwings.

Lalallallalal whoops I pooped my pants.

Derf derf derf.

[Poet]

Hey guys.......

Cutler is better than Rivers. Do you agree? Check yes or no.


To answer this right now, I think Rivers is currently the better QB. I think Cutler will be a great QB, and barring injury can very well be a HOF player. I think his ceiling is higher than Rivers, and higher than the vast majority of players in this league.

By this time next year I think everyone will be in full agreement that Cutler is not only superior than Rivers, but a top three or four QB.

But at the moment, barely Rivers.

[bengaaaaals1688]

To answer this right now, I think Rivers is currently the better QB. I think Cutler will be a great QB, and barring injury can very well be a HOF player. I think his ceiling is higher than Rivers, and higher than the vast majority of players in this league.

By this time next year I think everyone will be in full agreement that Cutler is not only superior than Rivers, but a top three or four QB.

But at the moment, barely Rivers.

Quoted for truth and emphasis. Anyone who has seen me post since I first joined Broncomania knows what I think about Cutler and how much I like him. However, Rivers is at this point in their respective careers the better QB.

[Poet]

Quoted for truth and emphasis. Anyone who has seen me post since I first joined Broncomania knows what I think about Cutler and how much I like him. However, Rivers is at this point in their respective careers the better QB.

No, you're just an idiot like me. Now, how do we leave this thread? I've been stuck here for hours? I keep hitting the refresh button but it doesn't do anything.

/tears

[bengaaaaals1688]

No, you're just an idiot like me. Now, how do we leave this thread? I've been stuck here for hours? I keep hitting the refresh button but it doesn't do anything.

/tears

I have no clue... Maybe if you press the button with the cutter thingie majiggie on it.

[Poet]

I have no clue... Maybe if you press the button with the cutter thingie majiggie on it.

Whoa, colors.........whoa.

[Lonestar]

I'm going to ship over a bunch of post and say..

In his 2000 yard season TD Sat out large chunks of the 4th quarter in some cases the second half.. Because we flat did not want to totally embarrass some teams..

Some of those games he had migraines that were caused by his teeth f all things once he got braces they went away..

There is no doubt in anyones mind that had he not ruined his knee by playing defense on a PICK, that he had 2-3 more years playing at 12-1500 yards per year.. But that was not to be..

almost 80% of the voters for the HOF live east of the Mississippi, on the west coast or in the southeast..

Whereas DEN played a min of 6 games a year in cities that have but a few votes unless TD was on National TV most of those 80% of the HOF voters never got to see just how good he was game in and game out.... There was no NFL network only espn that had short clips on him..


Let me add LT was the only weapon they had for many years.. ONLY when Gates arrived that SAN had any passing game beside screen to LT..

[GEM]

Only 4 other players have hit 2,000 rushing yards in a season. Try again.

As for CJ, its an absolute joke you would even put him in the discussion. Receivers, back's, QB's, etc have all lead the league in stats at one point or another. But when it comes to championships, MVP awards, Special stats (whether its leading in stats or CERTAIN stats i.e 2000 yds) then those players are easily in the discussion for HOF consideration. CJ is nowhere close to any of that in ANY regard.

Except in his own mind and yellow jacket. :rolleyes:

[GEM]

It very much matters if he belongs or not. Because if he does not belong all you would be doing is making another misttake.

He was a beast for the time he was on the field. However, when I ask you to prove to me he would have kept producing for his career, you can't. You can assume he would, hell, I assume he would. I assume he would be really high up there for career yards, TDs, yards from scrimmage. I also assume his YPC would dip a little bit over the yards, like most backs.

To refute the fact that we cannot prove what he would have done makes zero sense. Prove it to me right now, empirical evidence please.

You honestly think that Jamal Lewis is one of the best RBs ever?

This guy? http://www.nfl.com/players/jamallewis/profile?id=LEW373095 He had one great year. His other years were almost all average barring his two 1,300 yard seasons. That guy, as average as he is OVERALL FOR HIS CAREER is a Hall of Famer JUST because he rushed for 2k yards? Are you serious?

You ASS*U*ME he wouldn't. Hypotheticals are worthless.

If it was on 2000 yards alone, you might have a case king.
2000 yds (one of only 5 guys to ever do that)
MVP
Super Bowls
Completely dominating

Add ALL that together and there is your reason why he is in HOF consideration. If ALL of that was nothing, NO ONE would bring him up in the conversation.

[bengaaaaals1688]

You ASS*U*ME he wouldn't. Hypotheticals are worthless.

If it was on 2000 yards alone, you might have a case king.
2000 yds (one of only 5 guys to ever do that)
MVP
Super Bowls
Completely dominating

Add ALL that together and there is your reason why he is in HOF consideration. If ALL of that was nothing, NO ONE would bring him up in the conversation.

We don't assume he wouldn't, we actually stated numerous times that he probably would have.

We know exactly why he should be a consideration, and we know exactly why you guys defend him so strongly, but it was both of our contentions that whether it be because of bad luck or not, he didn't play at the top of his game for a long enough amount of time to deserve to be in the HOF. Longevity should play an important factor because if a player does dominate for 3 years, at any position, and then plays another 5-6 and in those 5 or 6 he's no better than average, he doesn't belong in the HOF. It may be considered unfair to use what is possibly just bad luck against Davis, but we don't know if he would have dominated, even if we'd like to believe that he would have.

[Poet]

You ASS*U*ME he wouldn't. Hypotheticals are worthless.

If it was on 2000 yards alone, you might have a case king.
2000 yds (one of only 5 guys to ever do that)
MVP
Super Bowls
Completely dominating

Add ALL that together and there is your reason why he is in HOF consideration. If ALL of that was nothing, NO ONE would bring him up in the conversation.

I don't assume anything. I just look at a total career, and want more than three great years and one good one.

[GEM]

I don't assume anything. I just look at a total career, and want more than three great years and one good one.


It very much matters if he belongs or not. Because if he does not belong all you would be doing is making another misttake.

He was a beast for the time he was on the field. However, when I ask you to prove to me he would have kept producing for his career, you can't. You can assume he would, hell, I assume he would. I assume he would be really high up there for career yards, TDs, yards from scrimmage. I also assume his YPC would dip a little bit over the yards, like most backs.

To refute the fact that we cannot prove what he would have done makes zero sense. Prove it to me right now, empirical evidence please.

You honestly think that Jamal Lewis is one of the best RBs ever?

This guy? http://www.nfl.com/players/jamallewis/profile?id=LEW373095 He had one great year. His other years were almost all average barring his two 1,300 yard seasons. That guy, as average as he is OVERALL FOR HIS CAREER is a Hall of Famer JUST because he rushed for 2k yards? Are you serious?

See the bolded section above. You asked someone to prove that he would have been just as good. You assume that he wouldn't have. :noidea:

[claymore]

See the bolded section above. You asked someone to prove that he would have been just as good. You assume that he wouldn't have. :noidea:Hell Yeah.

[Poet]

See the bolded section above. You asked someone to prove that he would have been just as good. You assume that he wouldn't have. :noidea:

That is not an assumption. It is a factual statement. Prove to me he could keep doing it. I think he could, in fact, I assume he could. But I also know that assumptions make asses out of people, and since it can't be proved why would I go on it?

Apply that same logic elsewhere. People could say that players like Jeff Garcia and Kurt Warner should be in the Hall of Fame because they produced now and they assume that they could have produced back in the day. It's not a stupid assumption at all. But, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.

[topscribe]

To answer this right now, I think Rivers is currently the better QB. I think Cutler will be a great QB, and barring injury can very well be a HOF player. I think his ceiling is higher than Rivers, and higher than the vast majority of players in this league.

By this time next year I think everyone will be in full agreement that Cutler is not only superior than Rivers, but a top three or four QB.

But at the moment, barely Rivers.


Quoted for truth and emphasis. Anyone who has seen me post since I first joined Broncomania knows what I think about Cutler and how much I like him. However, Rivers is at this point in their respective careers the better QB.

I really do not think that Cutler would take control of San Diego's talent
and be at a lousy 5-8 at this time of the year. Certainly not this year's
Cutler. He has the receivers here in Denver, yes, but he does not have LT,
nor does he have all that defensive talent (for whatever happened to
them).

Moreover, I do not see how it is possible for Phyllis to take his team on his
back and bring back a team as Cutler is showing he can do (ala Cleveland,
Atlanta, KC, and San Diego). I have seen only one QB who had that same
ability to that degree: John Elway.

I certainly could not see Phyllis having this team at 8-5.

Not only do I believe Phyllis does not compare to Cutler as a QB, but I
don't believe it is close enough for there to be a controversy. I would
rather have Cutler in the future and have him right now.

-----

[bengaaaaals1688]

I really do not think that Cutler would take control of San Diego's talent
and be at a lousy 5-8 at this time of the year. Certainly not this year's
Cutler. He has the receivers here in Denver, yes, but he does not have LT,
nor does he have all that defensive talent (for whatever happened to
them).

Moreover, I do not see how it is possible for Phyllis to take his team on his
back and bring back a team as Cutler is showing he can do (ala Cleveland,
Atlanta, KC, and San Diego). I have seen only one QB who had that same
ability to that degree: John Elway.

I certainly could not see Phyllis having this team at 8-5.

Not only do I believe Phyllis does not compare to Cutler as a QB, but I
don't believe it is close enough for there to be a controversy. I would
rather have Cutler in the future and have him right now.

-----

I see what you are saying, but if you are going to judge them at individuals you have to judge what they are doing from a statistical standpoint as well, and more importantly, because the team doesn't have anything to do with the skill of an individual. Statistically Rivers is playing very well with WRs that are nowhere near as good as Denver's and a running game that actually isn't even doing as well as Denver's. Rivers is having to do everything by himself, even moreso than Cutler, and that's what makes him better right now. He is also less prone to mistakes and in all categories besides yards leading Cutler. He has a better rating, better completion percentage, more TD's, and less INT's.

And I have to disagree very much on Elway being the only one with that level of ability... Montana did it constantly, Manning(Peyton) has done it constantly, Favre has done it his entire career... There are many QBs in history and present who have been able to put their team on their backs and win games against tough teams. Elway did it well, but there are other QBs that are comparable and have done it better than Cutler has thus far.

[topscribe]

I see what you are saying, but if you are going to judge them at individuals you have to judge what they are doing from a statistical standpoint as well, and more importantly, because the team doesn't have anything to do with the skill of an individual. Statistically Rivers is playing very well with WRs that are nowhere near as good as Denver's and a running game that actually isn't even doing as well as Denver's. Rivers is having to do everything by himself, even moreso than Cutler, and that's what makes him better right now. He is also less prone to mistakes and in all categories besides yards leading Cutler. He has a better rating, better completion percentage, more TD's, and less INT's.

And I have to disagree very much on Elway being the only one with that level of ability... Montana did it constantly, Manning(Peyton) has done it constantly, Favre has done it his entire career... There are many QBs in history and present who have been able to put their team on their backs and win games against tough teams. Elway did it well, but there are other QBs that are comparable and have done it better than Cutler has thus far.

Sorry, but I'm not much of a stats guy. I judge more of what I see on the
field. And what I see on the field is a guy who can put his team on his back
and will them to a win, something Phyllis has not shown, and something
that, frankly, I doubt he will ever show.

And if you think these other QBs are on a par with Elway in that category,
then you must be very young. I saw them all, all the way back to Y.A.
Tittle and Bart Star. Now, why don't you produce a QB who has as many
come from behind wins as Elway?

Since you're apparently a big stats guy, here's one for you: Elway had a
come from behind win for ever six games he played. I defy you to find a
QB who had that same ratio.

BTW, Cutler has had a come from behind win for every six games he played
so far.

How about Phyllis? Looks like he missed the boat there. Let's face it: he is
not in Cutler's class, nor will he ever be.

Now, why don't we dispense with this stupidity of trying to draw a parallel
between a fairly good QB like Phyllis and a superstar like Cutler?

-----

[bengaaaaals1688]

Sorry, but I'm not much of a stats guy. I judge more of what I see on the
field. And what I see on the field is a guy who can put his team on his back
and will them to a win, something Phyllis has not shown, and something
that, frankly, I doubt he will ever show.

And if you think these other QBs are on a par with Elway in that category,
then you must be very young. I saw them all, all the way back to Y.A.
Tittle and Bart Star. Now, why don't you produce a QB who has as many
come from behind wins as Elway?

Since you're apparently a big stats guy, here's one for you: Elway had a
come from behind win for ever six games he played. I defy you to find a
QB who had that same ratio.

BTW, Cutler has had a come from behind win for every six games he played
so far.

How about Phyllis? Looks like he missed the boat there. Let's face it: he is
not in Cutler's class, nor will he ever be.

Now, why don't we dispense with this stupidity of trying to draw a parallel
between a fairly good QB like Phyllis and a superstar like Cutler?

-----

I'll jump first to the last question, Cutler isn't a superstar yet, so it is a parallel between good and good.

Stats HAVE to factor in... If they were irrelevant they wouldn't exist. You need to pay attention to stats or else absolutely everything would be subjective and based purely on opinion. You can't hold them as sole proof because they don't tell the whole story, but they have to be seen and taken into account to form a fully accurate opinion.

I never said they were actually better than Elway, I said they are near the level and they are MUCH closer to the level than Cutler. Cutler has had a good ratio, yes, but he is also much too young to put him on par with Elway. If Cutler is on par with Elway, then Manning, Favre, and Montana are actually above Elway. Give him more than 2 years, probably closer to at the very least 6-7 years, and then it is POSSIBLE that he can be argued as on Elway's level.

Rivers has played better this season, the stats show it, whether the wins do or not. A QB can't be judged on his wins very critically because the team is more important and you can only judge a team on wins. You don't have to like it, and you can try and argue Cutler, but based on everything that has gone on Rivers is better. The most important stat for all QBs is completion percentage and Rivers has a higher percentage, the second most important stat is the TD/INT ratio, and Rivers is winning in that as well. Cutler is a good young QB who probably has a great career ahead of him, but he has not reached greatness yet.

[topscribe]

I'll jump first to the last question, Cutler isn't a superstar yet, so it is a parallel between good and good.

Stats HAVE to factor in... If they were irrelevant they wouldn't exist. You need to pay attention to stats or else absolutely everything would be subjective and based purely on opinion. You can't hold them as sole proof because they don't tell the whole story, but they have to be seen and taken into account to form a fully accurate opinion.

I never said they were actually better than Elway, I said they are near the level and they are MUCH closer to the level than Cutler. Cutler has had a good ratio, yes, but he is also much too young to put him on par with Elway. If Cutler is on par with Elway, then Manning, Favre, and Montana are actually above Elway. Give him more than 2 years, probably closer to at the very least 6-7 years, and then it is POSSIBLE that he can be argued as on Elway's level.

Rivers has played better this season, the stats show it, whether the wins do or not. A QB can't be judged on his wins very critically because the team is more important and you can only judge a team on wins. You don't have to like it, and you can try and argue Cutler, but based on everything that has gone on Rivers is better. The most important stat for all QBs is completion percentage and Rivers has a higher percentage, the second most important stat is the TD/INT ratio, and Rivers is winning in that as well. Cutler is a good young QB who probably has a great career ahead of him, but he has not reached greatness yet.

I never said Cutler is "on a par" with Elway.

And "based on everything that has gone on," Rivers is not better. You say
that because you seem to be misinterpreting these statistics. Statistics show
much, but there is one thing they do not show: understanding. They show
how often a QB has completed a pass, but they do not show the significance
of a given pass. They also do not show how a QB performs in crunch time,
when the chips are down. They are miserably short on intangibles: leadership,
maturity, mental toughness. They fall short in showing why a given QB wins
games, whereas another loses them, despite amassing "better" statistics.

As I said, Rivers has not shown that he can take a team on his back and will
it to win, as Cutler has several times now. As I also said, only Elway has
done that to that degree (one out of every six games). Saying that Cutler
has also done it once in every six games is not putting him "on a par" with
Elway. You're the stats guy. You should understand that.

It is also not saying Cutler has yet reached "greatness." (I somehow forgot
to insert the adjective "budding" in front of "superstar" in my previous post.)
Moreover, I did not say others had not come from behind to win games. I
said only Elway did it to the degree that he did.

I seem to be having a hard time getting my message across to you. If I
haven't been expressing myself clearly to you, I apologize for that.

-----

[GEM]

That is not an assumption. It is a factual statement. Prove to me he could keep doing it. I think he could, in fact, I assume he could. But I also know that assumptions make asses out of people, and since it can't be proved why would I go on it?

Apply that same logic elsewhere. People could say that players like Jeff Garcia and Kurt Warner should be in the Hall of Fame because they produced now and they assume that they could have produced back in the day. It's not a stupid assumption at all. But, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.

Had he not had the knee injury...prove to me that he would NOT have competed at the same level he competed at for the past 4 years of his career.

You can't.

Jeff Garcia and Kurt Warner were NEVER considered the best at their position.

[GEM]

This thread has actually been one of the better football conversations between rival fans. I've enjoyed it so far.

[bengaaaaals1688]

I never said Cutler is "on a par" with Elway.

And "based on everything that has gone on," Rivers is not better. You say
that because you seem to be misinterpreting these statistics. Statistics show
much, but there is one thing they do not show: understanding. They show
how often a QB has completed a pass, but they do not show the significance
of a given pass. They also do not show how a QB performs in crunch time,
when the chips are down. They are miserably short on intangibles: leadership,
maturity, mental toughness. They fall short in showing why a given QB wins
games, whereas another loses them, despite amassing "better" statistics.

Significance of passes rests in whether they were first downs, or TDs (at least IMO). If you complete a pass on second down that doesn't get a first down, then I don't feel that pass truly means anything. I think the best way to look at stats, to be objective, and the way I try to do it constantly is to take ratios and make flat comparisons of them. As for significance, Cutler throws for a first down every 2.8 attempts for a 35% first down average, while Rivers throws for a first down every 2.5 attempts for a 40% first down average.

In all honesty, I think I'm the one not being clear enough on why I have my opinion... As far as an overall and more rounded QB, I'd rather have Cutler than Rivers, hell I'm still confused as to why the Chargers felt that Rivers would help them more than Brees. However, this season, and at this moment, Rivers is playing better, even if as a whole he isn't actually better. And by playing better I mostly mean he has taken care of the ball better and completed a higher percentage of his passes. I am of the belief that you should never need a QB to win more than a couple games a season, but I have loads of respect for those who can do it. I want a QB who will not turn the ball over, and won't throw a lot of incomplete passes, and so far this season that is Rivers.


As I said, Rivers has not shown that he can take a team on his back and will
it to win, as Cutler has several times now. As I also said, only Elway has
done that to that degree (one out of every six games). Saying that Cutler
has also done it once in every six games is not putting him "on a par" with
Elway. You're the stats guy. You should understand that.

It is also not saying Cutler has yet reached "greatness." (I somehow forgot
to insert the adjective "budding" in front of "superstar" in my previous post.)
Moreover, I did not say others had not come from behind to win games. I
said only Elway did it to the degree that he did.

I seem to be having a hard time getting my message across to you. If I
haven't been expressing myself clearly to you, I apologize for that.

-----

Rivers may not be able to put the team on his back and win, and at the end of the game I wouldn't truly want him to be my QB, however as I stated earlier in this post, he does take care of the ball and he keeps it off the ground. Cutler, talent wise, is easily a better QB, but there are many QBs who are better than Tom Brady talent wise and he's still a better QB. Rivers takes care of the ball better, and that is why he is the better QB at this moment. I fully expect that at the very least in 2 years Cutler will be head and shoulders above him, you have seen me post enough to know that, but if given the option right now, it would be Rivers.

I'm not only stats, fact is that I hate most stats people throw out because most people don't look at stats objectively, but I also don't like when people ignore stats. Cutler has shown a great ability to bring the team back, no question, and I see your point... You just have to understand I'm used to listening to Steelers fans throw out ridiculous crap about how this player is just as good as the best player ever at his position so sometimes that carries over into talk with other people. He has shown that ability, and if he keeps it up throughout his career then I will be able to see, if not argue, the point that he is at least close to Elway's level, I just took it as if you were saying that he was NOW.

As for other QBs not being at Elway's level... They may not have the same amount of comebacks, but a QB like Montana didn't have too many games he was forced to come back in. QBs like that didn't do it often, but when they were asked to do it they did it flawlessly, which comes back to your statement earlier about intangibles. A Joe Montana could come back with the best of them, but he didn't have to as often as others. However, he did it on some of the biggest stages of the game, against the Cowboys in the Conference Championship, the Bengals in the SB, the Broncos in the SB, etc... He may not have done it often, but I'd argue he could do it just as well as Elway from the times he did have to do it.

You are making yourself perfectly clear Top, but I like the debate we have going... No need for apologies or anything.:salute: You're one of the few people who can keep a level head when being argued with, and I like that about you.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Had he not had the knee injury...prove to me that he would NOT have competed at the same level he competed at for the past 4 years of his career.

You can't.

Jeff Garcia and Kurt Warner were NEVER considered the best at their position.

See that's where people have taken our argument wrong my dear... We never said we could prove he wouldn't, but we also know that there is no proof he would have. It isn't the lack of belief in his ability that has both of us thinking he doesn't belong, it's the lack of production, even if that production was severely limited by an injury first and foremost. We have asked for proof that he would have competed at the same level only because some have stated it as if it is a definite even if there isn't proof, faith is great, but it's the same as when people tell me the Bengals WOULD have won our playoff game against the Steelers in '05 if Palmer stayed in... They have no proof that we would have, just like I have no solid proof we still wouldn't have, at this point all we have is what happened... And what happened is that TD got hurt too early in his career and couldn't solidify himself among the greats, and we lost the playoff game.

[topscribe]

Significance of passes rests in whether they were first downs, or TDs (at least IMO). If you complete a pass on second down that doesn't get a first down, then I don't feel that pass truly means anything. I think the best way to look at stats, to be objective, and the way I try to do it constantly is to take ratios and make flat comparisons of them. As for significance, Cutler throws for a first down every 2.8 attempts for a 35% first down average, while Rivers throws for a first down every 2.5 attempts for a 40% first down average.

In all honesty, I think I'm the one not being clear enough on why I have my opinion... As far as an overall and more rounded QB, I'd rather have Cutler than Rivers, hell I'm still confused as to why the Chargers felt that Rivers would help them more than Brees. However, this season, and at this moment, Rivers is playing better, even if as a whole he isn't actually better. And by playing better I mostly mean he has taken care of the ball better and completed a higher percentage of his passes. I am of the belief that you should never need a QB to win more than a couple games a season, but I have loads of respect for those who can do it. I want a QB who will not turn the ball over, and won't throw a lot of incomplete passes, and so far this season that is Rivers.



Rivers may not be able to put the team on his back and win, and at the end of the game I wouldn't truly want him to be my QB, however as I stated earlier in this post, he does take care of the ball and he keeps it off the ground. Cutler, talent wise, is easily a better QB, but there are many QBs who are better than Tom Brady talent wise and he's still a better QB. Rivers takes care of the ball better, and that is why he is the better QB at this moment. I fully expect that at the very least in 2 years Cutler will be head and shoulders above him, you have seen me post enough to know that, but if given the option right now, it would be Rivers.

I'm not only stats, fact is that I hate most stats people throw out because most people don't look at stats objectively, but I also don't like when people ignore stats. Cutler has shown a great ability to bring the team back, no question, and I see your point... You just have to understand I'm used to listening to Steelers fans throw out ridiculous crap about how this player is just as good as the best player ever at his position so sometimes that carries over into talk with other people. He has shown that ability, and if he keeps it up throughout his career then I will be able to see, if not argue, the point that he is at least close to Elway's level, I just took it as if you were saying that he was NOW.

As for other QBs not being at Elway's level... They may not have the same amount of comebacks, but a QB like Montana didn't have too many games he was forced to come back in. QBs like that didn't do it often, but when they were asked to do it they did it flawlessly, which comes back to your statement earlier about intangibles. A Joe Montana could come back with the best of them, but he didn't have to as often as others. However, he did it on some of the biggest stages of the game, against the Cowboys in the Conference Championship, the Bengals in the SB, the Broncos in the SB, etc... He may not have done it often, but I'd argue he could do it just as well as Elway from the times he did have to do it.

You are making yourself perfectly clear Top, but I like the debate we have going... No need for apologies or anything.:salute: You're one of the few people who can keep a level head when being argued with, and I like that about you.

You hit a chord on Montana. Some people consider him a greater QB than
Elway. I have always maintained that Montana had a far greater supporting
cast than Elway ever did. Elway never had Montana's O-line. He never had
Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Dwight Clark, and Roger Craig all at once, except
for the Super Bowl years of the '90s, when he had Rod Smith, Ed McCaffrey,
Shannon Sharpe, and Terrell Davis . . . and he still didn't have the defense
Montana enjoyed. (It was a fairly good defense, but not on the 49ers' level.)

So, as you said, Montana didn't have to come from behind as often. But
neither could he have. One reason Elway could pull off those wins was
because he could do things on the field no one else could.

This is what I see in Cutler. He is the first since Elway who can do all the
things Elway could, as well as Elway could.

Elway's stats never matched the likes of Montana, Marino, or even Brady.
Then why was he a better QB? Intangibles that stats could never pick up.

There are two QBs, in my own opinion, who could just put a bad team on
his back and will them to win at any time: Norm Van Brocklyn and John
Elway. And now, I see one who could fit into that mold in Cutler.

You are right in that Rivers would appear to be playing better right now
than Cutler, according to stats. But when I look at the games against
Tampa, Cleveland, Atlanta, NYJ, and KC last week, I just do not see the
Broncos winning those games with Rivers at the helm. I just do not.

You also hit the nail on the head on another issue: Brees is better than
both of them . . . right now. But I would still rather have Cutler for the
future than even Brees.

As you mentioned, this was a great discussion. I'm willing to agree to
disagree. :beer:

-----

[Poet]

Had he not had the knee injury...prove to me that he would NOT have competed at the same level he competed at for the past 4 years of his career.

You can't.

Jeff Garcia and Kurt Warner were NEVER considered the best at their position.

I don't have to. The question is was his career, what he did do, worthy of the hall of fame. Seeing how it was only 3 years, the answer is no.

I am asking you to prove to me that he would have kept it up. You can't, I can't disprove that he would have slowed down. What you guys are missing is that I don't think he would have slowed down. However, since it is a fact that we have no idea what he would have done speculating about his numbers is as worthwhile as trying to drive a car with no wheels; you can try to do it, but you will be getting nowhere one way or another.

So seeing how we have no idea what would have happened, I go back to what did happen; three great years of a career.

And as far as I am concerned, that is not a hall of fame player.

GEM, Kurt Warner was considered to be the best QB during his stay on the Rams. People gobbled up his story, and when the ring hit his finger and the stats started to jump off the page, oh yeah, people were calling him the one of the best.

Garcia had people on his jock to a lesser degree.

[Poet]

I would like to take this time to assert how much I hate Shawn Merriman.


That is all.

[GEM]

I would like to take this time to assert how much I hate Shawn Merriman.


That is all.

Now THERE is something we ALL can agree on. :lol:

[NorthernLights]

As I said, Rivers has not shown that he can take a team on his back and will
it to win, as Cutler has several times now.

-----

I haven’t been responding to this thread but as GEM has pointed out, it has evolved into a good discussion. I would like to stand up for Rivers from the standpoint that he has been able to take the team on his back. By my count, he has been able to bring the Chargers back from a second half deficit to either tie or take the lead 14 times since the start of the 2006 season. Here is how it has broken out:

2008
Wk 1 down 19-10, 4th quarter scored 14 to lead 24-19. Lost with no time on the clock.
Wk 2 down 31-17, 3rd quarter scored 21 to lead 38-31. Lost with 24 seconds on clock.
Wk 4 down 15-3, 4th quarter scored 25 to win 28-15.
Wk 11 down 8-7, 4th quarter scored 3 to lead 10-8. Lost with 11 seconds on the clock
Wk 12 down 20-10, 4th quarter scored 10 to tie. Lost with no time on the clock.

2007
Wk 14 down 17-3, 4th quarter scored 20 to win 23-17.
Wk 1 playoffs down 6-0, 3rd quarter, scored 17 to win 17-6.
Wk 2 playoffs down17-14, 3rd quarter scored 7 to take lead 24-17 before leaving game with injury.

2006
Wk 5 down 13-7, 3rd quarter, scored 16 to win 23-13
Wk 7 down 27-13, 4th quarter, scored 14 to tie. Lost with 27 seconds on the clock.
Wk 10 down 28-7, 3rd quarter, scored 42 to win 49-41.
Wk 11 down 24-7, 3rd quarter, scored 28 to win 35-27
Wk 12 down 14-7, 3rd quarter, scored 14 to win 21-14
Wk 16 down 17-13, 4th quarter, scored 7 to win 20-17

The loses should be chalked up to the defense not being able to make a stop. Since 2006, Rivers has started 49 games and is 32-17. Coming back from a deficit 14 times or 30% is pretty good in my book.

[Northman]

You hit a chord on Montana. Some people consider him a greater QB than Elway. I have always maintained that Montana had a far greater supporting cast than Elway ever did.

Oh, there's no question about that.

[bengaaaaals1688]

You hit a chord on Montana. Some people consider him a greater QB than
Elway. I have always maintained that Montana had a far greater supporting
cast than Elway ever did. Elway never had Montana's O-line. He never had
Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Dwight Clark, and Roger Craig all at once, except
for the Super Bowl years of the '90s, when he had Rod Smith, Ed McCaffrey,
Shannon Sharpe, and Terrell Davis . . . and he still didn't have the defense
Montana enjoyed. (It was a fairly good defense, but not on the 49ers' level.)

So, as you said, Montana didn't have to come from behind as often. But
neither could he have. One reason Elway could pull off those wins was
because he could do things on the field no one else could.

This is what I see in Cutler. He is the first since Elway who can do all the
things Elway could, as well as Elway could.

Elway's stats never matched the likes of Montana, Marino, or even Brady.
Then why was he a better QB? Intangibles that stats could never pick up.

There are two QBs, in my own opinion, who could just put a bad team on
his back and will them to win at any time: Norm Van Brocklyn and John
Elway. And now, I see one who could fit into that mold in Cutler.

You are right in that Rivers would appear to be playing better right now
than Cutler, according to stats. But when I look at the games against
Tampa, Cleveland, Atlanta, NYJ, and KC last week, I just do not see the
Broncos winning those games with Rivers at the helm. I just do not.

You also hit the nail on the head on another issue: Brees is better than
both of them . . . right now. But I would still rather have Cutler for the
future than even Brees.

As you mentioned, this was a great discussion. I'm willing to agree to
disagree. :beer:

-----

I do not believe Montana is the best QB of all time, I think he is close to it because it is difficult for anybody to find somebody who could hold his cool in the face of ridiculous pressure and still complete a pass. I also don't think Elway is, but he has just as good an argument as any. My only contention is that Montana could have, and that comes back to all of the crap that can't actually be proven about TD's later years in that it's only something that can be assumed. He always led it back differently, picking apart a defense that lesser QBs couldn't have touched, but he led his team back on the biggest of stages, and I think that is the biggest reason why so many would put him above Elway.

For the future I'd rather have Cutler just because he is young and has yet to reach his potential, but for probably the next 2-3 years I'd take Brees, personally.

As far as the rest is concerned, I am also willing to agree to disagree. And I also guarantee that in 2 years (at the longest) it will no longer be a discussion.:salute:

[Poet]

I do not believe Montana is the best QB of all time, I think he is close to it because it is difficult for anybody to find somebody who could hold his cool in the face of ridiculous pressure and still complete a pass. I also don't think Elway is, but he has just as good an argument as any. My only contention is that Montana could have, and that comes back to all of the crap that can't actually be proven about TD's later years in that it's only something that can be assumed. He always led it back differently, picking apart a defense that lesser QBs couldn't have touched, but he led his team back on the biggest of stages, and I think that is the biggest reason why so many would put him above Elway.

For the future I'd rather have Cutler just because he is young and has yet to reach his potential, but for probably the next 2-3 years I'd take Brees, personally.

As far as the rest is concerned, I am also willing to agree to disagree. And I also guarantee that in 2 years (at the longest) it will no longer be a discussion.:salute:

Remember when people used to talk about Palmer in the same way?

Let's go murder Mike Brown. I got the shotty..........

Great discussion guys.:salute:

May this thread rest in peace.

[bengaaaaals1688]

Remember when people used to talk about Palmer in the same way?

Let's go murder Mike Brown. I got the shotty..........

Great discussion guys.:salute:

May this thread rest in peace.

Remember when Carson Palmer was in one piece?? Let's go murder Levi Jones and Stacy Andrews, you take RT I'll take LT.

[topscribe]

Remember when people used to talk about Palmer in the same way?

Let's go murder Mike Brown. I got the shotty..........

Great discussion guys.:salute:

May this thread rest in peace.

Palmer still has the same immense skills he always had.

It's not his fault his team is in a shambles . . .

-----

[bengaaaaals1688]

Palmer still has the same immense skills he always had.

It's not his fault his team is in a shambles . . .

-----

He has them, but he hasn't used them even when he has been healthy. Last season he had an amazing year, yardage wise, but his completion percentage was down and he threw way too many INTs. His mechanics seem off because when he has been healthy he's had too much of a tendency to overthrow, which he never did before his knee injury. I think he is a bit too tentative since then, and it's hurting his throws.

[topscribe]

He has them, but he hasn't used them even when he has been healthy. Last season he had an amazing year, yardage wise, but his completion percentage was down and he threw way too many INTs. His mechanics seem off because when he has been healthy he's had too much of a tendency to overthrow, which he never did before his knee injury. I think he is a bit too tentative since then, and it's hurting his throws.

They are ruining his ass. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thannoyed-1.gif

I've seen that before. Years ago, the Broncos got a gifted QB, by the name
of Steve Tensi, from the San Diego chargers. Though immobile, he had a
howitzer arm, and in the first game he threw an 80-yard TD pass in which
the ball traveled most of that 80 yards.

Because of the Broncos' pathetic O-line, there was not a defensive lineman
in the league who was not familiar with every part of Tensi's body. Before
he left the Broncos, he was a broken QB, never to be heard from again.

It is sad what is happening to Palmer.

-----

[NorthernLights]

They are ruining his ass. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thannoyed-1.gif

I've seen that before. Years ago, the Broncos got a gifted QB, by the name
of Steve Tensi, from the San Diego chargers. Though immobile, he had a
howitzer arm, and in the first game he threw an 80-yard TD pass in which
the ball traveled most of that 80 yards.

Because of the Broncos' pathetic O-line, there was not a defensive lineman
in the league who was not familiar with every part of Tensi's body. Before
he left the Broncos, he was a broken QB, never to be heard from again.

It is sad what is happening to Palmer.

-----


Man, you weren't kidding when you said years ago about Tensi. Drafted in 1965.

[topscribe]

Man, you weren't kidding when you said years ago about Tensi. Drafted in 1965.

I was there. :D

-----

[Northman]

I was there. :D

-----

Old man. :D

[bengaaaaals1688]

I was there. :D

-----

Grow the hell up Top... You young whipper snapper.:rolleyes::D

[bengaaaaals1688]

They are ruining his ass. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thannoyed-1.gif

I've seen that before. Years ago, the Broncos got a gifted QB, by the name
of Steve Tensi, from the San Diego chargers. Though immobile, he had a
howitzer arm, and in the first game he threw an 80-yard TD pass in which
the ball traveled most of that 80 yards.

Because of the Broncos' pathetic O-line, there was not a defensive lineman
in the league who was not familiar with every part of Tensi's body. Before
he left the Broncos, he was a broken QB, never to be heard from again.

It is sad what is happening to Palmer.

-----

The Bengals ruin everyone... As much as I love Palmer I almost hope he demands a trade and goes on so he can actually have a good career, but he's to humble and too prideful (so he really wants to be a part of the rebuilding process that won't be complete until Mike Brown dies), to actually do such a thing. This team doesn't deserve him for a second.

[topscribe]

The Bengals ruin everyone... As much as I love Palmer I almost hope he demands a trade and goes on so he can actually have a good career, but he's to humble and too prideful (so he really wants to be a part of the rebuilding process that won't be complete until Mike Brown dies), to actually do such a thing. This team doesn't deserve him for a second.

Maybe he's just become a Bengal.

Elway will die a Bronco. Maybe that's Palmer?

-----

[bengaaaaals1688]

Maybe he's just become a Bengal.

Elway will die a Bronco. Maybe that's Palmer?

-----

You could be very right, but I'm not sure how one becomes a Bengal... The team beats you down until you are all of a sudden garbage, even though you started out as a great player. He has become Bengalized, that's for sure, because he truly believe the Bengals will actually be good in the near future.:rolleyes:

I'm making this small because it pains me to say it, but by the beginning of training camp I will believe the same thing.:tsk:

[Medford Bronco]

The Bengals ruin everyone... As much as I love Palmer I almost hope he demands a trade and goes on so he can actually have a good career, but he's to humble and too prideful (so he really wants to be a part of the rebuilding process that won't be complete until Mike Brown dies), to actually do such a thing. This team doesn't deserve him for a second.

Palmer is one of my favorite players. It sucks that he was hurt all season long. I always will root for him. :salute:

[Lonestar]

Man, you weren't kidding when you said years ago about Tensi. Drafted in 1965.



Actually I remember going to a few of those last games he played here, the poor ******* would actually flinch when the ball was hiked to him..

An incredible "tell" as folks knew when he was going to pass or hand off.

[NorthernLights]

Actually I remember going to a few of those last games he played here, the poor ******* would actually flinch when the ball was hiked to him..

An incredible "tell" as folks knew when he was going to pass or hand off.

That reminds me of a Charger game I went to in the 70's where James "Shack" Harris was playing QB and got injured and had to leave the game, but his backup also got hurt and poor Harris had to come back onto the field. He could barely move. They took the snap in shot gun because he couldn't back up. The defense knew each play was going to be a hand off and they usually got to Harris before he could even get the ball to the RB. It was painful to watch.

I was pretty young, but I vividly remember that game. Poor guy.

[bengaaaaals1688]

That reminds me of a Charger game I went to in the 70's where James "Shack" Harris was playing QB and got injured and had to leave the game, but his backup also got hurt and poor Harris had to come back onto the field. He could barely move. They took the snap in shot gun because he couldn't back up. The defense knew each play was going to be a hand off and they usually got to Harris before he could even get the ball to the RB. It was painful to watch.

I was pretty young, but I vividly remember that game. Poor guy.

Even I know that game and I wasn't even alive for at least another 10 years.:lol: I felt terrible for the guy.

[BoltsOwnU]

Hmmm, this seems an opportune time to revive this thread.:coffee:

[Northman]

Ahh, my favorite troll. Knew it wouldnt be long.

[Devilspawn]

Hmmm, this seems an opportune time to revive this thread.:coffee:
I'm so looking forward to this week and beyond! :elefant:

[Lonestar]

Ahh, my favorite troll. Knew it wouldnt be long.


let him have fun we will show them next year IF we get a new DC.. if not then we will be owned by them next year also..

[Northman]

let him have fun we will show them next year IF we get a new DC.. if not then we will be owned by them next year also..

Not at all. He has his right to come here and talk smack. The team left the door open and now they have a chance to steal it back from us.

[Slick]

Maybe Jay can learn a little from Phillis. Phillis knows that if he throws a 3 yard pass to Sproiles, he can get first downs, or even 6.

Jay doesn't always have to force it. He gets away with it at times, but that's no excuse.

[BoltsOwnU]

I'm so looking forward to this week and beyond! :elefant:

Ironically, I'm taking my gal to Australia for the holidays starting tomorrow. Really didn't expect to miss what is in essence, a first-round play off game. My mom and her husband are taking my seats, which, given that she is an even more rabid fan that I am, bodes ill for Denver.:D

Having said that, I hope the Bolts don't think like a lot of Denver fans here seem to, and think they've got it in the bag. Cutler remains a weapon (not as good of one as PR of course, but a weapon nonetheless).

I've simply got my fingers crossed that the Bolts come out ready to play and possibly make a statement.:beer:

[Northman]

Ironically, I'm taking my gal to Australia for the holidays starting tomorrow. Really didn't expect to miss what is in essence, a first-round play off game. My mom and her husband are taking my seats, which, given that she is an even more rabid fan that I am, bodes ill for Denver.:D

Having said that, I hope the Bolts don't think like a lot of Denver fans here seem to, and think they've got it in the bag. Cutler remains a weapon (not as good of one as PR of course, but a weapon nonetheless).

I've simply got my fingers crossed that the Bolts come out ready to play and possibly make a statement.:beer:


I hope Denver can prove they can beat the Chargers. But its hard to deny that SD is playing "lights out" right now. They could have folded when they went down 24-20 but showed a lot of guts to dig in and get a much needed victory today. I think i would feel better about losing to SD if i knew there wouldnt be the usual trash talking that i know is going to ensue but thats how it is i guess.

[BoltsOwnU]

I hope Denver can prove they can beat the Chargers. But its hard to deny that SD is playing "lights out" right now. They could have folded when they went down 24-20 but showed a lot of guts to dig in and get a much needed victory today. I think i would feel better about losing to SD if i knew there wouldnt be the usual trash talking that i know is going to ensue but thats how it is i guess.

Yeah, but that's what makes it really, the best and biggest game of the year, for either team and their fans.:beer:

[Lonestar]

let him have fun we will show them next year IF we get a new DC.. if not then we will be owned by them next year also..


Not at all. He has his right to come here and talk smack. The team left the door open and now they have a chance to steal it back from us.


I think you misunderstood what I was saying

Let him have fun stop, we will show them next year IF we get an NEW DC stop,if not stop, we will be owned by them next year also..stop.

Hope that was clearer..

[CutlerzPoutyFace]

Broncos: 4-4
Chargers: 3-5

Go home, loser.


I love your wife too.

[Midnight Blue]

I love your wife too.

You really need to elevate your game. :coffee:

[BoltsOwnU]

Bummer, this thread looks like it will finally go away. I'll give Cutler credit for wanting to jump ship on a dysfunctional organization, but he's still a whiny joker that can't walk the walk. He'd look good in a Raider uni.

[Jaws]

Bummer, this thread looks like it will finally go away. I'll give Cutler credit for wanting to jump ship on a dysfunctional organization, but he's still a whiny joker that can't walk the walk. He'd look good in a Raider uni.

With Al's firing record, at least if he didn't like his coach, he wouldn't have long to wait until the HC was out of the way.

*shudders at the thought of cutler in a faiders uni*

:spit:

[EMB6903]

Ive never debated Cutler vs Rivers... I know Cutler is better

I can only imagine if Cutler had LT behind him to where defenses had 8 in the box for his entire career. not to mention the amazing overall talent he plays around, all Chargers fans have is team accomplishments, because they know there isnt one thing Rivers is better then Cutler at.

[BoltsOwnU]

Ive never debated Cutler vs Rivers... I know Cutler is better

I can only imagine if Cutler had LT behind him to where defenses had 8 in the box for his entire career. not to mention the amazing overall talent he plays around, all Chargers fans have is team accomplishments, because they know there isnt one thing Rivers is better then Cutler at.

Except winning, oh and being a decent human being.:D

hahaha, thanks for this. I actually got a good laugh at the end of a workday.:beer:

[Northman]

Except winning, oh and being a decent human being.:D

hahaha, thanks for this. I actually got a good laugh at the end of a workday.:beer:


Beat your feet Bolo, dont make me break out you-know-who on your ass. :D


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/54/039_22352~Jean-Claude-Van-Damme-Posters.jpg

[KCL]

Except winning, oh and being a decent human being.:D

hahaha, thanks for this. I actually got a good laugh at the end of a workday.:beer:

it's not Cutler vs Rivers nowadays....haven't you heard? (or read)....it's
Cutler vs the Broncos new HC...:lol:

[EMB6903]

Except winning, oh and being a decent human being.:D

hahaha, thanks for this. I actually got a good laugh at the end of a workday.:beer:

being a decent human being?

Phillip Rivers?

HA!

[BoltsOwnU]

Beat your feet Bolo, dont make me break out you-know-who on your ass. :D


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/54/039_22352~Jean-Claude-Van-Damme-Posters.jpg

Well played!:beer:

[Foochacho]

Beat your feet Bolo, dont make me break out you-know-who on your ass. :D


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/54/039_22352~Jean-Claude-Van-Damme-Posters.jpg

Did you have to use the street fighter Van Damme pic.
It gets more homo cred than it does badass.

[BoltsOwnU]

Did you have to use the street fighter Van Damme pic.
It gets more homo cred than it does badass.

This is an excellent point. Although RECOGNIZING it as such also gets a little homo cred too. . .:D

[Poet]

This is an excellent point. Although RECOGNIZING it as such also gets a little homo cred too. . .:D

We can all agree that you are a massive homo.