Ben is Dilfer, but with longer tenure.
Husky
__________________
number6
> Really, he was blessed to be on a team with a stout Def.
> __________________
I give GB a lot of credit yesterday with all the adversities before
and during the game ... (Including the bogus face mask - which got
little attention) ... And thought Rodgers played one helluva game
making unreal throws at times (to receivers with dropsies
unfrotunately at times)
Rodgers gets credit for the win ...I don't want to lessen his
performance one iota ... but Ben definitely gets tons of blame for the
loss ... despite being able to put some numbers up against a depleted
GB secondary ...
6
> __________________
You're out of your mind.
Dilfer put up less yards than Ben while playing in more games, his
career comp % is 55.5 as compared to Ben's 63.1, Ben smokes him in avg
yds per attempt 8.0 to 6.5 ... and the list goes on.
Ben is to Bradshaw as Dilfer is to Neil O'Donnell.
Husky
Name the receivers Dilfer had to throw to? Dilfer didn't have a 34
QB, in his SB rating like Ben did in the Seattle SB.
Plus, Dilfer was throwing prior to the Rule changes that the Cry Baby
Polian demanded.
Again, both were blessed to be on a teams with a stout Defs.
6
> Name the receivers Dilfer had to throw to?
The name Shannon Sharpe comes to mind.
Husky
comparison to the quantity and quality of receivers plus the time Ben
had with better receivers and softer rule. Heck, Randel El would have
been the best wide receiver on that Ravens team.
The Inconvenient Truth
It's not the rapists' fault. Capers defense did him in, like it did in
alot of teams this season.
--
MZ
Why do career stats matter? I think people are referring to Dilfer's
2000 season, not what he did with Tampa Bay, etc.
Fritz
You're not giving Big Ben his due; he's much better than Dilfer ever
thought of being. I don't like the guy either but he's a damn good
quarterback. You have to put aside the fact he's a scumbag and look
at him as a football player. He makes a lot of plays in big spots but
I'm glad he didn't yesterday
IommiRULES
Ben and Mendenhall were masquerading as the 2010 version of Eli and
Bradshaw yesterday. Turnovers killed Pitt.... the obvious pick six but
the Mendenhall fumble KILLED them when the steelers were about to take
control of the game. Pitts D played about as well as could be expected
vs arguably the best QB in football under dome conditions.
IommiRULES
I can see if your point is Rothliesberger is over-rated, but comparing
him with Dilfer is laughable. Dilfer was released the next year by the
Ravens if i remember correctly.
Husky
JMHO, but the point was that a great D allows a less than spectacular
QB a chance at a championship. e.g., it's the team around you that
determines success. Pitt has had a history of acquiring an incredible
amount of talent.
Dilfer was 7-1 as a starter for the Ravens and won 4 playoff games on
the road. The next season he played with Seattle, going 4-0 and
setting a personal career QB rating mark.
Even if Ben is better than Dilfer, Dilfer accomplished what Ben Did,
in better fashion, with a good Def team.
mtfe...@netscape.net
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> > > Name the receivers Dilfer had to throw to?
> >
> > The name Shannon Sharpe comes to mind.
> He passed the ball?
FWIW, Dilfer has a better QB rating in the Super Bowl than Ben.
Mike
6
> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> > > > Name the receivers Dilfer had to throw to?
>
> > > The name Shannon Sharpe comes to mind.
> > He passed the ball?
>
> FWIW, Dilfer has a better QB rating in the Super Bowl than Ben.
OK, that's one game. Go on.
MZ
Sometimes only one game is all that matters. Dilfer had a good season
in '00. It wasn't just the D and Jamal Lewis (although that certainly
helps!). Sort of like Brad Johnson in '02. Sure, when you take into
account his whole career, he wasn't a very good QB. But his '02
season was phenomenal. IMO, he deserved MVP consideration that year.
Look back and you often see that championship teams have a bunch of
guys who weren't very impressive throughout their careers, but reached
their peak at the same time. Look at the '01 Pats, with guys like
Tebucky Jones, Otis Smith, and Bobby Hamilton on the defensive side of
the ball. How can you field a top defense with guys like that? Well,
when you consider their career performance, they weren't so great.
But those three guys had great seasons that year and were instrumental
pieces in the championship. Look at '02...was there a better pass
rusher in football than Simeon Rice? Look how strong the Bucs'
secondary was (how many of you remember who won the SB MVP that
year?). Or the '07 Giants front 7? How about Indy's defense in their
championship? Branch and Patten in '04? Nobody remembers these
things. They just remember the players who were consistently good
throughout their careers.
In 2000, Trent Dilfer was a good quarterback. Maybe it had to do with
all the pieces around him, but maybe not.
mtfe...@netscape.net
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> > FWIW, Dilfer has a better QB rating in the Super Bowl than Ben.
> Mike, you are right but it isn't close if you compare that same number
> to total play off games and there is a bigger spread if you compare
> regular season. Do you honestly think they are even close in skill?
With the loss to the Packers, Roethlisberger's 10-3 in the playoffs.
Dilfer (surprisingly) was 5-1. Dilfer went to a team coming off
13 consecutive losing seasons; 3 of the next 5, they had winning records.
Ben went to a team coming off a single losing sesaon in the previous 3.
Roethlisberger's better; he simply isn't the big game QB he's been
(or was) made out to be. He was put immediately into a better situation,
though. He's a "right place, right time" QB (like Bob Griese, for instance)
and that's not bad, but I wouldn't put him in the elite category; Polomalu's
more important.
Look at it this way; O'Donnell was terrible in the '95 SB. He threw
3 INTs, had one TD pass, completed 57% of his passes that game. Ben's
1st SB? 0 TDs, 2 INTs, 43% completion. Yet Roethlisberger is a "winner"
because his defense overcame his mistakes. He's directly
accounted for 4 pick-6s, a fumble for a TD, and a safety in the playoffs.
That's not good. In fact, in 6 of his 13 playoff games he's thrown as
many (or more) INTs as TDs. The Steelers are 4-2 in those games, but
that's a credit to the defense, not a testimony to Roethlisberger's
"clutch" performance.
> If all we looked at was ratings to rank QB's in the Super Bowl then
> Doug Williams would be ranked higher than Brady.
Williams is probably the wrong example. He was the ONLY reason the
Bucs had winning seasons in their first 22. They won a total of
2 games before he got there. They had 3 winning seasons in the next
5, then none for another 14 years. THAT guy was a winner, and very
underrated.
If the Packer had had Williams in the 80s, they wouldn't have been a lost
decade for us.
Mike
Grinch
>
> Maybe, but wasn't tony Banks the starter? I honestly can't remember
> how he played but he did win a a ring
>
> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Banks started and lost the job when the offense went five straight
games without a TD.
Dilfer went in and had a Sanchez-like season. He was ranked 20th by
passer rating, 26th by adjusted average yards per attempt, and FOers
ranked him 39th(!)
In the playoffs he put up good numbers rating-wise and yrds/pass-wise
but on very few attempts, hitting all of: 9 of 14, 5 of 16, 9 of 18.
He averaged 9+ yards per attempt over those games which is really
superior -- but some QBs throw that many passes in one game. It was
the classic formula: top defense, good running game, limited-ability
game management QB who can pick his spots to be most effective.
Lombardi would've smiled.
In the SB he really opened it up to go 12 of 25. (The average is 33
attempts/game).
Big Ben is "no comparison" better than Dilfer -- but all this stuff
about personal QB W-L records is nonsense, teams win games, not QBs,
and it is double true for championships.
The first time Ben "won" the SB he played the worst game for a winning
team in SB history, the rest of the Steelers won the game anyhow (and
totally bailed Ben out as far as his "W-L" is concerned).
Dilfer did what he was asked to do for the team to win, he did it
well, and they won. That's team play. All credit to him for it.
Grinch
> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> > > FWIW, Dilfer has a better QB rating in the Super Bowl than Ben.
> > Mike, you are right but it isn't close if you compare that same number
> > to total play off games and there is a bigger spread if you compare
> > regular season. Do you honestly think they are even close in skill?
>
> With the loss to the Packers, Roethlisberger's 10-3 in the playoffs.
> Dilfer (surprisingly) was 5-1. Dilfer went to a team coming off
> 13 consecutive losing seasons; 3 of the next 5, they had winning records.
> Ben went to a team coming off a single losing sesaon in the previous 3.
>
> Roethlisberger's better; he simply isn't the big game QB he's been
> (or was) made out to be.
Few supposed big game QBs are. Before Joe Montana famously won the
big game by throwing "the catch" he threw three picks to damn near
lose it.
Here are Big Ben's playoff performances compared to his
contemporaries' in some detail:
http://footballoutsiders.com/quick-reads/2011/quick-reads-super-bowl-xlv
And here's a heck of lot more detail:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=8700
mtfe...@netscape.net
> On Feb 8, 9:29?pm, mtfes...@netscape.net wrote:
> > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With the loss to the Packers, Roethlisberger's 10-3 in the playoffs.
> > Dilfer (surprisingly) was 5-1. Dilfer went to a team coming off
> > 13 consecutive losing seasons; 3 of the next 5, they had winning records.
> > Ben went to a team coming off a single losing sesaon in the previous 3.
> > Roethlisberger's better; he simply isn't the big game QB he's been
> > (or was) made out to be.
> Few supposed big game QBs are. Before Joe Montana famously won the
> big game by throwing "the catch" he threw three picks to damn near
> lose it.
However, his playoff rating is about the same as his regular season
rating, and his SB QB rating is higher. Roethlisberger's playoff
QB rating is much lower than his regular season rating, and his
SB rating is decidedly poor.
As for "the catch" game, yeah, Montana got lucky on two accounts. The
team was able to overcome his INTs in that game, and White had enough
time to mount a comeback, but threw a game-ending pick himself. But
again, on balance, Montana was as good in the playoffs (actually, a
tiny bit better) than in the regular season.
> Here are Big Ben's playoff performances compared to his
> contemporaries' in some detail:
> http://footballoutsiders.com/quick-reads/2011/quick-reads-super-bowl-xlv
Yes, I saw that; they pretty much agree that "Big Game Ben" is more
feather than chicken.
"The truth is that it's not totally clear why Ben Roethlisberger deserves
such a reputation in the first place. A closer look at his play in big
games suggests that Roethlisberger's actual performance isn't all that
it's been purported to be."
Which is what I've said all along.
> And here's a heck of lot more detail:
> http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=8700
I pulled most of the info below from that site. Thanks for the blog.
However, his comparisons are a bit off. He states
"You can start to see why some teams have reached multiple Super Bowls
with their offense's production. Troy Aikman and Ben Roethlisberger may
not be known for leading regular season offensive juggernauts, but in the
playoffs, they are among the best ever at putting points on the board."
This is wrong. The Aikman-led offenses were in fact among the best in the
NFL, ranking 3, 2, and 2 in the SB years, and 2 and 7 other seasons. As for
Roethlisberger, I've already mentioned he's been directly responsible for
surrendering immediate scores in 6 different games. That's among the worst
ever. And they mention that Ben has been the benificiary of among the best
starting field position. Again, a credit to the PGH defense.
Ben's been able to keep the team in the playoff hunt, which is not to
be sneezed at, but I haven't yet seen him really elevate a team in
the playoffs.
Again, credit to the Steelers' defense (and coaches). That's a nice
position to be in.
Mike
mtfester.netm...@gmail.com
He's also got a better playoff rating than Ben.
Mike
mtfester.netm...@gmail.com
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> games & playoff games has Ben won?
Your question should be how many games did Ben win after the PGH
defense bailed him out?
> How many people said Dilfer is the man you want with the ball with 2 minutes to go?
The problem is that Dilfer didn't play as many games with a good team
as Ben has.
> I hope you are trolling on this one.
The stats back up what we are saying.
Mike
Husky
> man you want with the ball with 2 minutes to go? I hope you are
> trolling on this one.
Trolling, NO. So what happened on that last drive, Sunday? That was
the exact scenario where you implied he shines. No Santonio, no
miracle. Remember teams put up over 50 pts on that Cardinal team, yet
Ben struggled needing divine intervention (Harrisons pic for a TD when
The Cards were driving for a score) and Holmes circus catch There's
no time machine, but again JMHO, if Dilfer was in the exact situation
Ben was in, the Steelers would have accomplished the same results.
How'd the back up QBs perform during Bens suspension and in other
games he didn't start? HOF'ers like Batch and Dixon.
Husky
> > the exact scenario where you implied he shines. No Santonio, no
> > miracle. Remember teams put up over 50 pts on that Cardinal team, yet
> > Ben struggled needing divine intervention (Harrisons pic for a TD when
> > The Cards were driving for a score) and Holmes circus catch There's
> > no time machine, but again JMHO, if Dilfer was in the exact situation
> > Ben was in, the Steelers would have accomplished the same results.
>
> regularly again tells me that the league though t the same. You are
> stretching on this one.
>
>
>
> > How'd the back up QBs perform during Bens suspension and in other
> > games he didn't start? HOF'ers like Batch and Dixon.
>
> made the play offs with Cassel
No, the Pats didn't make the Playoffs with Cassel.
Husky
> to play in college as opposed to the fact the Steelers went 3-1.
Yes, you stand corrected, twice. (There were no steroids either)
Maybe Cassel didn't get a chance in college instead of not being good
enough to play. In any event, KC thought he was good enough to burden
him with a ton of cash. The Pats have a knack for finding obscure
QB's and turning them into stars.
So, 3-1 converts to 12-4 for the regular season. What was the
Steeler's record for the season, again?
Husky
> > > to play in college as opposed to the fact the Steelers went 3-1.
>
> > Yes, you stand corrected, twice. (There were no steroids either)
>
> steroids.
What you said, was "You are forgetting Spikes who could be a player
but the failed drug
test is always scary. Is it him or is it steroids. " You brought
Steroids into the conversation, not I.
> He tested positive for a banned substance which is
> correct. He didn't challenge the suspension so that means at best he
> was using a Schedule II controlled substance w/o a script and at worst
> he was using it as a masking agent. I wonder how he would come back
> next year like I would for any player using a performance enhancing
> drug . It isn't a big leap to wonder if he was using steroids.
Wow that's one hell of a strawman arguement you pulled out of your
butt. As they didn't find steroids in his system, it is a huge leap
to wonder that.
>
> > Maybe Cassel didn't get a chance in college instead of not being good
> > enough to play. In any event, KC thought he was good enough to burden
> > him with a ton of cash. The Pats have a knack for finding obscure
> > QB's and turning them into stars.
>
> So Cassel is a star now?
Well he made the Pro Bowl. In any event KC thought so judging by how
much they paid him.
>
> > So, 3-1 converts to 12-4 for the regular season. What was the
> > Steeler's record for the season, again?
>
> It was 12-4 obviously a dramatic difference from11-5.
Just saying the Pitt Back ups did as well as Ben, percentage wise.
As we were comparing QBs on the same teams;
11-5 and is a dramatic difference from 16-0.
MZ
Cassel sucked for most of the '08 season. He started to turn it
around about midway through, but still had substantial hiccups.
Compare his performance with Brady's in '07 with largely the same
group of offensive players. [Granted, it's not fair to compare much
of anyone to Brady... but if there ever was a beneficiary of a
system, it's Cassel -- moreso than Ben, IMO]
PS - Pro bowl, schmo bowl. :)
Husky
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
>
> > > > > I stand corrected the Pats went 11-5 with a guy who wasn't good enough
> > > > > to play in college as opposed to the fact the Steelers went 3-1.
>
> > > > Yes, you stand corrected, twice. (There were no steroids either)
>
> > > Read my post again and tell me where I said he tested positive for
> > > steroids.
>
> > What you said, was "You are forgetting Spikes who could be a player
> > but the failed drug
> > test is always scary. Is it him or is it steroids. " You brought
> > Steroids into the conversation, not I.
>
> low on an IQ test I would wonder if he was rrelated to you.
Ah now it's down to personal attacks. That's bad form.
So, WHO was using a masking agent? TIA I'll wait.
>
> > > He tested positive for a banned substance which is
> > > correct. He didn't challenge the suspension so that means at best he
> > > was using a Schedule II controlled substance w/o a script and at worst
> > > he was using it as a masking agent. I wonder how he would come back
> > > next year like I would for any player using a performance enhancing
> > > drug . It isn't a big leap to wonder if he was using steroids.
>
> > butt. As they didn't find steroids in his system, it is a huge leap
> > to wonder that.
>
> why I would wonder if he was any good. You haven't been around for
> awhile but you use that term too often and regularly incorrectly.
Not really. So, is it your premise that he was using a banned
substance to mask another banned substance?
>
> Please explain to me why he had a masking agent -- btw he could have
> been using it to mask pot, why he had an illegal drug in his system
> and why he didn't appeal. Then you can tell me that my conclusion
> requires a big leap.
Do you have a cite that shows Adderall to be masking agent? Just one,
from a reputable site. TIA
>
>
>
> > > > Maybe Cassel didn't get a chance in college instead of not being good
> > > > enough to play. In any event, KC thought he was good enough to burden
> > > > him with a ton of cash. The Pats have a knack for finding obscure
> > > > QB's and turning them into stars.
>
> > > So Cassel is a star now?
>
> > Well he made the Pro Bowl. In any event KC thought so judging by how
> > much they paid him.
>
> I think MZ covered that.
Well, he was 8th in QB rating.
>
>
>
> > > > So, 3-1 converts to 12-4 for the regular season. What was the
> > > > Steeler's record for the season, again?
>
> > > It was 12-4 obviously a dramatic difference from11-5.
>
> > Just saying the Pitt Back ups did as well as Ben, percentage wise.
> > As we were comparing QBs on the same teams;
> > 11-5 and is a dramatic difference from 16-0.
>
> And I am just saying comparing BR to Dilfer is still idiotic.
You entitled to your opinion.
> Five years into the league few people wanted Dilfer. Six years into the
> league and one Super Bowl ring he was signed as a back up. After a few
> possible rapes how many teams wouldn't take Rothlessberger?
Are you saying that Dilfer wouldn't or couldn't have put up better
numbers if he played on a good team, like the ones Roethlisburger was
on? AND are you saying that the looser rules Ben plays with wouldn't
have made his stats better?
mtfe...@netscape.net
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> Dilfer won 4 of those games in the Super Bowl run . Dilfer was also a
> veteran although he was certainly viewed as a bust with Tampa butI
> will give him his due. He performed for the Ravens & did what they
> needed.
And then they cut him.
So, yes, even though he was a "winner" in the playoffs, he wasn't highly
thought of, even by the coach he helped get a SB ring.
> > Roethlisberger's better; he simply isn't the big game QB he's been
> > (or was) made out to be. He was put immediately into a better situation,
> > though. He's a "right place, right time" QB (like Bob Griese, for instance)
> > and that's not bad, but I wouldn't put him in the elite category; Polomalu's
> > more important.
> The right place and right time could be said of most QB's. Rogers was
> put in the right situation as there was no pressure to grow up. Brady
> got thrown into a situation where every playoff game where he was
> playing on house money.
However, both Rodgers and Brady have performed considerably better in the
Super Bowl, and better overall in the playoffs.
But neither have consistently had Ben's defense backing him up.
> How do you define elite? If it is top 5 I would be hard pressed not
> to choose him. He does some stupid things but he often delivers
He's very good. I'd put him in the Schaub level (which is very good.)
If you put Roeth' on Houston, I don't think they get better. If PGH gets
Schaub, they don't skip a beat. IMO.
> > Look at it this way; O'Donnell was terrible in the '95 SB. He threw
> > 3 INTs, had one TD pass, completed 57% of his passes that game. Ben's
> > 1st SB? 0 TDs, 2 INTs, 43% completion. Yet Roethlisberger is a "winner"
> > because his defense overcame his mistakes. He's directly
> > accounted for 4 pick-6s, a fumble for a TD, and a safety in the playoffs.
> Stop using logic in here.
> :)
Sorry; must have been something I ate.
> Ben R also had a great running game. I think it is unfair to players
> to focus soley on Super Bowl. BR has had some very good play off
> games and he has the ability to move his team & score when they need
> it. He has had two bad Super Bowls but hehas played some great play
> off football.
And QBs on winning teams get way too much credit. (Rodgers MAY be a
QB who deserves those accolades, but we'll see in a few years.)
> > That's not good. In fact, in 6 of his 13 playoff games he's thrown as
> > many (or more) INTs as TDs. The Steelers are 4-2 in those games, but
> > that's a credit to the defense, not a testimony to Roethlisberger's
> > "clutch" performance.
> Go look at those play off games you referenced. You have to give him
> credit for getting the Steelers past the Jets. At the end of the game
> he got then 2 critical 1st downs. How about the Super Bowl vs.
> Arizona? Where wash is defense in that one?
He got 2 first downs against the Jets, true. He also was the beneficiary
of a Jets' fumble returned for a TD. He was intercepted twice in Jets'
territory. In the AZ game, he threw a nasty pick near the end of the first
half, which should have been turned into points. Instead, the defense
picked off Warner (one of the best post-season QBs) and rumbled for a TD.
The defense pretty much bailed him out on those. The AZ drive was great,
no doubt, but creditting him is kind of like thanking an arsonist who
helps puts out the fire.
> > If the Packer had had Williams in the 80s, they wouldn't have been a lost
> > decade for us.
> My point was you wouldn't say that Williams was a better Super Bowl QB
> than Brady because of one game. I liked Williams & thought he got a
> raw deal in Tampa. Part of it was his skin color-- which still is a
> fallback for some idiots-- and part of it was the QB gets too much
> credit, maybe Ben R & maybe even Rodgers, & gets too much blame.
Williams could have put a lot of teams over the top; certainly, he dragged
a lousey team into respectability.
> Thanks for the posts. I think Ben R for all his failings is a
> winner. MZ, may be right & Dilfer was the right guy & that was his
> year. I guess all his bad years clouds my memory and lowers my
> opinion. I was shocked at how he did have some good years in Tampa.
You're a fan of PGH; of course you like Ben. That's part of the whole
"fan" thing.
Take it easy.
Mike
mtfe...@netscape.net
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> >
> > > > JMHO, but the point was that a great D allows a less than spectacular
> > > > QB a chance at a championship. ?e.g., it's the team around you that
> > > > determines success. ?Pitt has had a history of acquiring an incredible
> > > > amount of talent.
> >
> > > > Dilfer was 7-1 as a starter for the Ravens and won 4 playoff games on
> > > > the road. ?The next season he played with Seattle, going 4-0 and
> > > > setting a personal career QB rating mark.
> > > > Even if Ben is better than Dilfer, Dilfer accomplished what Ben Did,
> > > > in better fashion, with a good Def team.
> >
> > > JMHO but that is just an idiotic opinion. ?How many regular season
> > > games & playoff games has Ben won?
> >
> > Your question should be how many games did Ben win after the PGH
> > defense bailed him out?
> >
> > > How many people said Dilfer is the man you want with the ball with 2 minutes to go?
> >
> > The problem is that Dilfer didn't play as many games with a good team
> > as Ben has.
> >
> > > I hope you are trolling on this one.
> >
> > The stats back up what we are saying.
> >
> > Mike
> Only if you are limiting your analysis to the Super Bowl and ignoring
> regular season & playoffs.
FYI, you're being trolled by a by pretending to be me.
Mike
mtfester.netm...@gmail.com
Nice try imposter. I've always put "MAPSON" in my email to avoid
spam.
Mike
John C TX
I've wasted enough time with you. Please crawl back in your hole.
Here are some terms for you to play with if you are interested.
Methylphenidate Dextroamphetamine Levoamphetamine
>
>
>
> > > > > Maybe Cassel didn't get a chance in college instead of not being good
> > > > > enough to play. In any event, KC thought he was good enough to burden
> > > > > him with a ton of cash. The Pats have a knack for finding obscure
> > > > > QB's and turning them into stars.
>
> > > > So Cassel is a star now?
>
> > > Well he made the Pro Bowl. In any event KC thought so judging by how
> > > much they paid him.
>
> > I think MZ covered that.
>
> Well, he was 8th in QB rating.
>
> > > > > So, 3-1 converts to 12-4 for the regular season. What was the
> > > > > Steeler's record for the season, again?
>
> > > > It was 12-4 obviously a dramatic difference from11-5.
>
> > > Just saying the Pitt Back ups did as well as Ben, percentage wise.
> > > As we were comparing QBs on the same teams;
> > > 11-5 and is a dramatic difference from 16-0.
>
> > And I am just saying comparing BR to Dilfer is still idiotic.
>
> You entitled to your opinion.
>
> > Five years into the league few people wanted Dilfer. Six years into the
> > league and one Super Bowl ring he was signed as a back up. After a few
> > possible rapes how many teams wouldn't take Rothlessberger?
>
> Are you saying that Dilfer wouldn't or couldn't have put up better
> numbers if he played on a good team, like the ones Roethlisburger was
> on? AND are you saying that the looser rules Ben plays with wouldn't
> have made his stats better?
--
mtfe...@netscape.net
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> > However, both Rodgers and Brady have performed considerably better in the
> > Super Bowl, and better overall in the playoffs.
> >
> > But neither have consistently had Ben's defense backing him up.
> Brady had some stout defenses in the 2nd & 3rd Super Bowls. They won
> that first Super Bowl with a tour bus of players from Lourdes. It was
> as MZ pointed out perfect timing or a miracle.
The first SB, NE ranked in the bottom half, defensively.
Brady's thing is more like he doesn't screw anything up. He's very
steady.
> > He's very good. I'd put him in the Schaub level (which is very good.)
> > If you put Roeth' on Houston, I don't think they get better. If PGH gets
> > Schaub, they don't skip a beat. IMO.
> interesting
Again, Schaub is good.
> > Williams could have put a lot of teams over the top; certainly, he dragged
> > a lousey team into respectability.
> >
> > > Thanks for the posts. I think Ben R for all his failings is ?a
> > > winner. ?MZ, may be right & Dilfer was the right guy & that was his
> > > year. ?I guess all his bad years clouds my memory and lowers my
> > > opinion. ?I was shocked at how he did have some good years in Tampa.
> >
> > You're a fan of PGH; of course you like Ben. That's part of the whole
> > "fan" thing.
> No I am Jet fan.
Ah. Then you may be interested to know I think Sanchez may well become
better than Roethlisberger.
All he needs it Ben's defenses behind him to get the credit :-)
Mike
Husky
> Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped in respect to bandwidth>
> > Do you have a cite that shows Adderall to be masking agent? Just one,
> > from a reputable site. TIA
>
> I've wasted enough time with you. Please crawl back in your hole.
flung a few Red Herrings into the conversation and got called out on
it?
I'm still waiting to hear, from you, which masking agent you were
talking about and who was taking it. Any time now.
>
> Here are some terms for you to play with if you are interested.
>
> Methylphenidate Dextroamphetamine Levoamphetamine
That has nothing to do with Steroids (which you blatantly implied) nor
masking agents (which you said.) So, let's reiterate: There were no
Steroids and no masking agents, as you implied or said. No one said
the guy was clean, just that the substance he was taking wasn't what
you implied or said it was. Please grow up, before posting again.
<snip>
MZ
> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> > > However, both Rodgers and Brady have performed considerably better in the
> > > Super Bowl, and better overall in the playoffs.
>
> > > But neither have consistently had Ben's defense backing him up.
> > Brady had some stout defenses in the 2nd & 3rd Super Bowls. They won
> > that first Super Bowl with a tour bus of players from Lourdes. It was
> > as MZ pointed out perfect timing or a miracle.
>
> The first SB, NE ranked in the bottom half, defensively.
Yet that was maybe the best defense they fielded of their three super
bowls. It was certainly better than their '04 defense (which, like
their '07 defense, was often the recipient of having a good offense
put them in good situations). The '01 defense came through for that
team big time, particularly in the later months, and obviously in the
super bowl. The '03 defense was very good too, not sure which one I'd
consider better. '03 was definitely another case of having certain
guys at the right times of their careers -- Ted Washington's '03
performance was among the best I've ever seen at the NT position, and
Tyrone Poole (of all people) was a stud that year. It was Hamilton's
final productive year. This was Rodney's first year with the team
too, and one of his better years overall. Law between '01 and '03 was
the best corner in football. And obviously they had a good group of
linebackers who were somewhat healthy and at the top of their games
that year (e.g. Bruschi). But half of those guys we'd consider losers
because they weren't able to stretch that performance out 5+ years.
The Inconvenient Truth
You're both full of shit.
LOL
--
The Inconvenient Truth
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > FYI, you're being trolled by a by pretending to be me.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Thanks
Dude, Mike has so many nics he cannot remember them all or the
personalities he hides behind with each morph.
--
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> > > > However, both Rodgers and Brady have performed considerably better in the
> > > as MZ pointed out perfect timing or a miracle.
> >
> > The first SB, NE ranked in the bottom half, defensively.
> They got better & better as the season progressed. I want to saythe
> least 5 games they never gave up 2 TDs in a single game.
NE ranked 24th in yards. In 4 of the last 6 games, they played Buffalo,
Carolina, Cleveland, and NO; it would have been remarkable if they DIDN'T
get better.
> > > > He's very good. I'd put him in the Schaub level (which is very good.)
> > > > If you put Roeth' on Houston, I don't think they get better. If PGH gets
> > > > Schaub, they don't skip a beat. IMO.
> > > interesting
> >
> > Again, Schaub is good.
> It is funny that in Houston they get down on him. That he goes entire
> quarters w/o touching the ball is lost by frustrated fans.
If Houston makes the playoffs, they'll suddenly love him.
> > > > You're a fan of PGH; of course you like Ben. That's part of the whole
> > > > "fan" thing.
> > > No I am Jet fan.
> >
> > Ah. Then you may be interested to know I think Sanchez may well become
> > better than Roethlisberger.
> >
> > All he needs it Ben's defenses behind him to get the credit :-)
> I hope I am arguing when someone compares him to Dilfer. His height &
> accuracy worries me at times but he has two years under his belt. At
> this time in his career Pennington had never played so I am hopeful.
He's been pretty good in the playoffs so far. A good sign.
Mike
MZ
> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> > > > > However, both Rodgers and Brady have performed considerably better in the
> > > > that first Super Bowl with a tour bus of players from Lourdes. ?It was
> > > > as MZ pointed out perfect timing or a miracle.
>
> > > The first SB, NE ranked in the bottom half, defensively.
> > They got better & better as the season progressed. I want to saythe
> > least 5 games they never gave up 2 TDs in a single game.
>
> NE ranked 24th in yards. In 4 of the last 6 games, they played Buffalo,
> Carolina, Cleveland, and NO; it would have been remarkable if they DIDN'T
> get better.
That NO game was a tough one. Also happens to be the first game I saw
that told me that Brady was the real deal, but that's a different
topic.
FWIW, they gave up 15.7 ppg in the playoffs against three tough
offenses (granted, a Kordell-led Pittsburgh's wasn't great, but it was
still a tough matchup). In the 9 games prior to that, they gave up
fewer than 17 points in all of them except for the 24 point game by
the "greatest show on turf". According to my numbers, in the final 12
games of the season (including playoffs), they gave up an average of
14.0 points per game, which is incredibly low. Probably the lowest in
the league, although Pittsburgh's D that year was insanely good. Even
when you take into account the flops early in the season, and don't
include the postseason, the Pats D was 6th in the league that year.
The postseason, including the historic stifling of the Rams offense in
the super bowl, just cemented the fact that they fielded a top tier
defense that year.