duccichucka said:

kpowers said:

To say that no coach in the history of football has never figured out how to stop a QB is ridiculous. Yes coaches know the strength and weakness of a QB, now being able to implement that is another story. Yes I agree with you about Joe Montana and which is what I said earlier about being in a good system.

[Edited 11/23/15 18:05pm]

Prove it. Give me an example of a coach studying film and then coming up with a game
plan that ruined an NFL quarterback's career because coaches "figured him out." The reason
why NFL quarterbacks suck is because more than just coaches studying film and learning
about a quarterback's strengths and weaknesses. I've said it three times now: Tom Brady
has fifteen years of film and yet he still puts up numbers. Why hasn't a coach "figured him
out?" Defense coordinators knew exactly what Joe Montana was going to do; why didn't any
one "figure him out?" This applies to other skill players: everyone knew exactly what Emmitt
Smith was going to do, yet was he "figured out?" What about John Riggins running the counter-
trey in Washington? Or, Jerry Rice running west coast offense timing slants; yet, no one
"figured him out."

So, this argument about "figuring a player out" doesn't capture the entire story of why a
quarterback struggles in the NFL. As it pertains to Kaepernick, it doesn't fully capture his
entire story of why he's struggling either.

See that is how you would stop Jerry Rice. Like I said before being able to implentment it is another thing. If the talent is there on the defense then yeah but Rice was just better. What about all the teams in the history of football to have zero wins for a season. Don't you think a defense was able to shut down the passing game because they figured out how to stop the QB.

duccichucka said:

kpowers said:

Sorry but he makes a better argument

Of course you do! You didn't think that I thought you were going be objective and
perspicacious about this, did you?

Sorry but he makes a better argument

kpowers said:

duccichucka said:

Prove it. Give me an example of a coach studying film and then coming up with a game
plan that ruined an NFL quarterback's career because coaches "figured him out." The reason
why NFL quarterbacks suck is because more than just coaches studying film and learning
about a quarterback's strengths and weaknesses. I've said it three times now: Tom Brady
has fifteen years of film and yet he still puts up numbers. Why hasn't a coach "figured him
out?" Defense coordinators knew exactly what Joe Montana was going to do; why didn't any
one "figure him out?" This applies to other skill players: everyone knew exactly what Emmitt
Smith was going to do, yet was he "figured out?" What about John Riggins running the counter-
trey in Washington? Or, Jerry Rice running west coast offense timing slants; yet, no one
"figured him out."

So, this argument about "figuring a player out" doesn't capture the entire story of why a
quarterback struggles in the NFL. As it pertains to Kaepernick, it doesn't fully capture his
entire story of why he's struggling either.

See that is how you would stop Jerry Rice. Like I said before being able to implentment it is another thing. If the talent is there on the defense then yeah but Rice was just better. What about all the teams in the history of football to have zero wins for a season. Don't you think a defense was able to shut down the passing game because they figured out how to stop the QB.

There is no "figuring out" a modern day QB. They are not codes to crack. Every defense
watches film and knows what plays a QB likes to execute or call in certain situations. But if
you are living with those things Kaepernick was living with, then as a QB, the chances are
you are going to put up putrid numbers and suck.

kpowers said:

duccichucka said:

Of course you do! You didn't think that I thought you were going be objective and
perspicacious about this, did you?

Sorry but he makes a better argument

What's his argument, KP? And why is it "better"?

duccichucka said:

kpowers said:

See that is how you would stop Jerry Rice. Like I said before being able to implentment it is another thing. If the talent is there on the defense then yeah but Rice was just better. What about all the teams in the history of football to have zero wins for a season. Don't you think a defense was able to shut down the passing game because they figured out how to stop the QB.

There is no "figuring out" a modern day QB. They are not codes to crack. Every defense
watches film and knows what plays a QB likes to execute or call in certain situations. But if
you are living with those things Kaepernick was living with, then as a QB, the chances are
you are going to put up putrid numbers and suck.

Wow you can see into the future ??? And what is your definition of modern day QB.

duccichucka said:

kpowers said:

Sorry but he makes a better argument

What's his argument, KP? And why is it "better"?

Everything phunkdaddy said I agree

duccichucka said:

kpowers said:

See that is how you would stop Jerry Rice. Like I said before being able to implentment it is another thing. If the talent is there on the defense then yeah but Rice was just better. What about all the teams in the history of football to have zero wins for a season. Don't you think a defense was able to shut down the passing game because they figured out how to stop the QB.

There is no "figuring out" a modern day QB. They are not codes to crack. Every defense
watches film and knows what plays a QB likes to execute or call in certain situations. But if
you are living with those things Kaepernick was living with, then as a QB, the chances are
you are going to put up putrid numbers and suck.

You still haven't answered about teams in the history of football to have zero wins for a season. Don't you think a defense was able to shut down the passing game because they figured out how to stop the QB.

kpowers said:

duccichucka said:

There is no "figuring out" a modern day QB. They are not codes to crack. Every defense
watches film and knows what plays a QB likes to execute or call in certain situations. But if
you are living with those things Kaepernick was living with, then as a QB, the chances are
you are going to put up putrid numbers and suck.

Wow you can see into the future ??? And what is your definition of modern day QB.

I said "the chances are" indicating that no, I cannot see into the future, but can make a pretty
good inference. Chances are, I think I can make a good inference about your critical thinking
abilities too - good lord, dude.

A modern day quarterback is one who can stand in the pocket and deliver a pass but also has
the athleticism and ability to make plays outside of the pocket and with his legs. Quickly fading
are the days of the Dan Marinos and the Peyton Mannings who just stand in the pocket all day
and pass. But also, no one is drafting strictly running QBs who defenses know can't throw but
can only run. You don't see a lot of Dan Marino/Peyton Manning types anymore. And you don't
see general managers and coaches drafting the Michael Vick types anymore either. Teams
want a QB who can do both; that's why I seriously doubt that Colin Kaepernick is a "one trick
pony" who can only make plays with his legs.

What do you mean by "figure out?" I think I know how you are using it, but just want to be sure.
Also, do you have an answer to my question as to why defenses have not been able to stop Tom
Brady for fifteen years despite having tons of film to study so as to "figure him out"?

kpowers said:

duccichucka said:

What's his argument, KP? And why is it "better"?

Everything phunkdaddy said I agree

Ah, I see. You're one of those posters.

Carry on!

kpowers said:

duccichucka said:

There is no "figuring out" a modern day QB. They are not codes to crack. Every defense
watches film and knows what plays a QB likes to execute or call in certain situations. But if
you are living with those things Kaepernick was living with, then as a QB, the chances are
you are going to put up putrid numbers and suck.

You still haven't answered about teams in the history of football to have zero wins for a season. Don't you think a defense was able to shut down the passing game because they figured out how to stop the QB.

In part, yes? Though, I'm still not sure how you're using the phrase "figure out."

Teams that suck and have lost 16 games in a sixteen game season had more to their utter
defeat than the defense realizing that the QB they are facing is limited and therefore, could
zero in on the ground game. Like I said, to show you that this argument is baseless, all I
need to do is show you a QB who defenses have had plenty of time to study and watch but
still have problems stopping him: to wit, Tom Brady.

I've said my piece to you: I'll wait for someone else to respond.

I'm not sure where this fits in the conversation but 99% of QB's are no better than the talent they are surrounded by and the coaching. No QB can win with bad coaching, a lack of talent and a bad defense. I always find it funny when folks go on and on about how good Brady is. last I checked, all of his SB wins were by a FG that he didn't kick and a dumb pass call last year that resulted an interception that Brady didn't make.

Brady is good..............but the system and team made him.

Graycap23 said:

I'm not sure where this fits in the conversation but 99% of QB's are no better than the talent they are surrounded by and the coaching. No QB can win with bad coaching, a lack of talent and a bad defense. I always find it funny when folks go on and on about how good Brady is. last I checked, all of his SB wins were by a FG that he didn't kick and a dumb pass call last year that resulted an interception that Brady didn't make.

Brady is good..............but the system and team made him.

You're another one who may be reading too much in my posts here, and without paying attention
to the nuance they contain. You find it "funny when folks go on and on" about Brady - this is in
response to my posts, obviously. But the context in which I was speaking about Brady was to
show KP that NFL defenses have fifteen years of studying Brady film, yet he still puts up Hall of
Fame numbers, meaning that "figuring out" a QB doesn't really tell the story of how well/bad a
QB performs. So, Brady was just an example I was using; I'm a Joe Montana fan. That being
said, the field goals that won those Super Bowls for Brady weren't 90 yarders or 60 yarders
meaning that someone had to march the team down the field to get into position to place the
kicker in. Also, before Wilson threw that INT on the dumbest call of all time in NFL history, it was
Brady who stormed down the field in the fourth quarter with time running out to take the lead.
So, although Brady is not the specific individual winning the football game at the end (like Mon-
tana did throwing that strike to Taylor against the Bengals), he is the architect of a lot of those
wins. Give that man his credit. And I bet 99% of you who aren't Patriot fans would take Tom
Brady as your starting quarterback for your favorite team in a heartbeat, so stop frontin'.

You're right: no QB can win with bad coaching, poor talent, a bad defense, and being injured. How
ever, if that is true, then it's converse is true too, which means just because you have a good coach,
good talent, a good defense, and are healthy doesn't mean you are going to be a good quarter-
back. This means then, that there is more to a good or great quarterback than the system and
team that "made him."

duccichucka said:

kpowers said:

You still haven't answered about teams in the history of football to have zero wins for a season. Don't you think a defense was able to shut down the passing game because they figured out how to stop the QB.

In part, yes? Though, I'm still not sure how you're using the phrase "figure out."

Teams that suck and have lost 16 games in a sixteen game season had more to their utter
defeat than the defense realizing that the QB they are facing is limited and therefore, could
zero in on the ground game. Like I said, to show you that this argument is baseless, all I
need to do is show you a QB who defenses have had plenty of time to study and watch but
still have problems stopping him: to wit, Tom Brady.

I've said my piece to you: I'll wait for someone else to respond.

Just have to agree to disagree so it's a dead horse subject for me

duccichucka said:

kpowers said:

Everything phunkdaddy said I agree

Ah, I see. You're one of those posters.

Carry on!

I agree with everything phunkdaddy said about the Giants beating the Patriots twice in the superbowl.

duccichucka said:

kpowers said:

Wow you can see into the future ??? And what is your definition of modern day QB.

I said "the chances are" indicating that no, I cannot see into the future, but can make a pretty
good inference. Chances are, I think I can make a good inference about your critical thinking
abilities too - good lord, dude.

A modern day quarterback is one who can stand in the pocket and deliver a pass but also has
the athleticism and ability to make plays outside of the pocket and with his legs. Quickly fading
are the days of the Dan Marinos and the Peyton Mannings who just stand in the pocket all day
and pass. But also, no one is drafting strictly running QBs who defenses know can't throw but
can only run. You don't see a lot of Dan Marino/Peyton Manning types anymore. And you don't
see general managers and coaches drafting the Michael Vick types anymore either. Teams
want a QB who can do both; that's why I seriously doubt that Colin Kaepernick is a "one trick
pony" who can only make plays with his legs.

What do you mean by "figure out?" I think I know how you are using it, but just want to be sure.
Also, do you have an answer to my question as to why defenses have not been able to stop Tom
Brady for fifteen years despite having tons of film to study so as to "figure him out"?

I think the better term is "know how to play him"

CarrieCee said:

IDK - I think Rex Ryan figured out Tom Brady last night. That was painful to watch...even with the win.

and that is coming from a Patriots fan.

More Johnny Manziel follies. I think he's worn out his welcome in Cleveland;

http://news.yahoo.co...WQDBHNlYwNzYw--

[Edited 11/24/15 16:47pm]

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

I'm not sure where this fits in the conversation but 99% of QB's are no better than the talent they are surrounded by and the coaching. No QB can win with bad coaching, a lack of talent and a bad defense. I always find it funny when folks go on and on about how good Brady is. last I checked, all of his SB wins were by a FG that he didn't kick and a dumb pass call last year that resulted an interception that Brady didn't make.

Brady is good..............but the system and team made him.

You're another one who may be reading too much in my posts here, and without paying attention
to the nuance they contain. You find it "funny when folks go on and on" about Brady - this is in
response to my posts, obviously. But the context in which I was speaking about Brady was to
show KP that NFL defenses have fifteen years of studying Brady film, yet he still puts up Hall of
Fame numbers, meaning that "figuring out" a QB doesn't really tell the story of how well/bad a
QB performs. So, Brady was just an example I was using; I'm a Joe Montana fan. That being
said, the field goals that won those Super Bowls for Brady weren't 90 yarders or 60 yarders
meaning that someone had to march the team down the field to get into position to place the
kicker in. Also, before Wilson threw that INT on the dumbest call of all time in NFL history, it was
Brady who stormed down the field in the fourth quarter with time running out to take the lead.
So, although Brady is not the specific individual winning the football game at the end (like Mon-
tana did throwing that strike to Taylor against the Bengals), he is the architect of a lot of those
wins. Give that man his credit. And I bet 99% of you who aren't Patriot fans would take Tom
Brady as your starting quarterback for your favorite team in a heartbeat, so stop frontin'.

You're right: no QB can win with bad coaching, poor talent, a bad defense, and being injured. How
ever, if that is true, then it's converse is true too, which means just because you have a good coach,
good talent, a good defense, and are healthy doesn't mean you are going to be a good quarter-
back. This means then, that there is more to a good or great quarterback than the system and
team that "made him."

No arguement from me. Brady is legit.

I was actually referring 2 my brother about Brady. He thinks Brady and Jesus are brothers.

Brady is legit, but if I'm starting a team, I choose Aaron Rodgers as my QB. His footwork, the way he buys time in the pocket - amazing.

I got so tired of hearing from so many sports analyst saying that the Cardinals/Bengals could be a superbowl preview. Sorry, playoff teams, not superbowl. NFC looks like Panthers/Packers and for the AFC Patriots (yeah I said Patriots duccichucka)

uPtoWnNY said:

Brady is legit, but if I'm starting a team, I choose Aaron Rodgers as my QB. His footwork, the way he buys time in the pocket - amazing.

Rodgers is the only other quarterback that I would consider. Yet not because of his footwork, but
because of his accuracy. His completion percentage is higher than Brady's.

uPtoWnNY said:

More Johnny Manziel follies. I think he's worn out his welcome in Cleveland;

http://news.yahoo.co...WQDBHNlYwNzYw--

[Edited 11/24/15 16:47pm]

He's the Adrien Broner of the NFL: he's a hip hop athlete who is more concerned with being
famous for his innate talent but because he doesn't want to be great, he doesn't put the work
in.

uPtoWnNY said:

Stedman Bailey shot in the head, his cousin shot multiple times. Definitely sounds like a hit.

http://www.cbsnews.c...n-head-reports/

phunkdaddy said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Brady is legit, but if I'm starting a team, I choose Aaron Rodgers as my QB. His footwork, the way he buys time in the pocket - amazing.

You are probably spot on but for me I'm picking Big Ben because of his heart and toughness. His game is not always pretty but when he's healthy he can beat you with his arm and legs. There is a new gun that's doing it that way now and that's Cam Newton. Cam haters can shut the fuck up now.

Tom Brady completes 63.6% of his passes. His touchdown to INT ratio is 417/147 which means
that for every INT he throws, he's almost throwing 3 touchdowns. And his QB rating is 96.5.

Ben Roethlisberger completes 63.9% of his passes. His touchdown to INT ratio is 261/138 which
means that for every INT he throws, he's almost throwing 2 touchdowns. And his QB rating is
94.0.

Aaron Rodgers completes 65.4% of his passes. His touchdown to INT ratio is 249/60 which means
that for every INT he throws, he's definitely throwing 4 touchdowns. And his QB rating is 105.6.

Cam Newton completes 59.1% of his passes. His touchdown to INT ratio is 102/63 which means
that for eery INT he throws, he's almost throwing 2 touchdowns. And his QB rating is 86.1.

Looks like Eagles give up 44+ points in the last 2 games

phunkdaddy said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Brady is legit, but if I'm starting a team, I choose Aaron Rodgers as my QB. His footwork, the way he buys time in the pocket - amazing.

You are probably spot on but for me I'm picking Big Ben because of his heart and toughness. His game is not always pretty but when he's healthy he can beat you with his arm and legs. There is a new gun that's doing it that way now and that's Cam Newton. Cam haters can shut the fuck up now.

I knew it would only be a matter of time for Cam Newton

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Off to the airport now.

phunkdaddy said:

Too bad KPowers our shitty secondary stinks. Tomlin needs to bench Antwon Blake now.

I know.....