Instagram QB's

[Futureite]

A. it is smarmy, not swarmy.

B. I have always said that Sherman's antics are not my style, but whatever gets him to perform at a championship level is what he should do. I'm a bit old school and prefer a more humble approach, but again - he is a gladiator and he needs to mentally and physically prepare for battle in a way that gets HIM ready. You, on the other hand, are a poster in a rival fan forum. See the difference? Also, the simple fact that you ask this question about me tolerating Sherman and not you is part of the problem I have with your responses. You make some giant generalizations about what we think and how we feel. I don't care enough to go back in the annals of discussion to find evidence - but I am sure the more intuitive of my colleagues here will agree.

C. Perhaps all your compliments have been legit. They feel disingenuous to me, particularly when you them follow up with criticisms, 1/2 truths and some out and out misrepresentations of the truth. I understand that some of what we discuss is subjective in nature and you are entitled to your opinion. There are, however, some fact-based discussions and you are often times just out-n-out factually incorrect. It is my perception (I will freely admit I could be wrong here, but it is how I FEEL) that you know dang good and well what you are doing, but you enjoy poking a tiger with a stick and getting a reaction.

D. I know Seahawk fans are not perfect, myself included...Some are even violent or out-n-out a-holes. Just kinda like the whole human race. I realize also that my disdain for the 49er organization is childish - but it is a 35 tear old hate - the origin of which was legitimate. Still, I don't spend my free time in 49er fan forums trying to convince them that CK7 is an immature jerk or that Jim Harbaugh is an Alaskan sized a-hole and that the whole rest of the NFL watching world agrees and cannot stand the sight of him screaming on the side-lines in his $9.00 Wal-Mart khakis. I simply find it odd (and irritating) that you choose to spend so much time in here, particularly when you are lambasting the very thing we all come to celebrate. It's kinda like going to the wedding of an enemy and insisting on making toast after toast. The first couple may fool a few people, but after awhile, people start to realize (or perceive) that you are doing it to get negative attention.

E. Sorry you are going through a rough time and I hope things get better for you. I am frankly irritated at myself as much as I am at you. I should not waste my time, particularly as a cancer patient, worrying about you and your insistence on being here and pissin' in our punch.

Please see the author of the thread "Aldon Smith arrested - again". Read through that and tell me if the things I posted sbout my own team are any different than some of the things I posted that ticked you off.

[Anthony]

Both Ds were bad. Denver had one of the weakest strengths of schedules in the NFL, and almost any decent O they played put up points on them. Look at what the Colts and Cowboys did to them, for example.

I agree Baltimore's D was bad in 2012 as well. Our O had no problem putting up big yards and points V them - over 450 yds 30+ pts and 300 in the air. It was our D STs that did not hold its end of the bargain.

I am not at all saying RW played a poor SB. If that's what you are reading in my posts then you are misinterpreting them. I only stated that he was not put in the same position to continue making the pressure plays that you have harped on Kap for blowing V your D in your stadium. And I said there is no way I can prove he couldn't have, so that about ends it.

River I think you have a really good QB and I even worried during our home win whether we left him with too much time to beat us. So I am not saying what you believe I am. I know the kid can make plays.

Okay dude please at least know your facts Denver was the 9th ranked scoring defense, that means they were pretty good, and we made them look pretty bad. that is called a fact, you might try to use them and if you do get them right, because so far your whole stance is weak and wrong. Also hate to tell you yes Rw did have to keep making plays, in order to keep Denvers defense on the sidelines and keep his defense fresh, he did have to and he di get the job done the facts show that.

[kalibane]

It's still all meaningless clap trap. Kapernick enjoys pretty much all the same advantages that Wilson enjoys. Kaep isn't asked to do more than Wilson and at the end of the day Wilson does it better whether Lynch runs well or not. All Future has are excuses. Excuses that change depending on the thread.

[RiverDog]

I am not at all saying RW played a poor SB. If that's what you are reading in my posts then you are misinterpreting them.

Then I don't know what the hell it is your trying to prove when you highlight the fact that Russell's stats were 90 yards passing and no TD's and the score was 29-0.

You're all over the board on this topic, Future. Pick a theme and either stick with it or admit that you were wrong instead of changing your tune every time someone challenges you on it.

[Futureite]

It's still all meaningless clap trap. Kapernick enjoys pretty much all the same advantages that Wilson enjoys. Kaep isn't asked to do more than Wilson and at the end of the day Wilson does it better whether Lynch runs well or not. All Future has are excuses. Excuses that change depending on the thread.

"Kaepernick enjoys pretty much all the same advatages that Wilson does".

Lynch 100+ yds
Gore 16 yds
Home in Seattle = advantage Wilson.
Pass rush = advantage Wilson.
Pass D = Huge advantage Wilson.

No way in god's fn green earth your QB comes into Clink as the opposing QB and plays any better or wins that game. Maybe early in the yr when he put up a whopping 12 pts and again fumbled in the redzone V a similar D in Carolina but overall put up 300 yds.. But against your D at that point in the yr? Game set match. Sorry the national radio was all over his play V the Saints, the week before and it was not very good.

Seriously look at your post: " . . Enjoys the same advantages". For sure. Like that stadium alone is not a titanic obstacle to overcome and has given HOF QBs like Rogers and Brees fits. As if a 100 yd rusher compared to 16 yds is not an gigantic advantage for any QB. Jesus who would even argue these things.

The personal attacks are getting fn old dude. That's literally all you guys come with now.

[Futureite]

I am not at all saying RW played a poor SB. If that's what you are reading in my posts then you are misinterpreting them.

Then I don't know what the hell it is your trying to prove when you highlight the fact that Russell's stats were 90 yards passing and no TD's and the score was 29-0.

You're all over the board on this topic, Future. Pick a theme and either stick with it or admit that you were wrong instead of changing your tune every time someone challenges you on it.

I have no clue what you are talking about, at all. You are using ridiculous examples to prove your point. Playing a good game under no pressure proves what?? I am not contradicting myself or "changing my tune" when I say he played well in the SB. For sone reason you are not connecting the dots where I am stating that he had no pressure. You are not connecting the fielf goal kicking in the redzone to equal playing "good" instead of "outstanding" or "brilliant". You are not connecting that 29-0 ith 90 yds IS NOT sn indictment of your QB, but rather evidence that he was not called upon to do much by his team to get that lead.

For whatever reason, you are either not understanding what I am writing, or you are choosing to reframe it as it suits you.

[RiverDog]

I am not at all saying RW played a poor SB. If that's what you are reading in my posts then you are misinterpreting them.

Then I don't know what the hell it is your trying to prove when you highlight the fact that Russell's stats were 90 yards passing and no TD's and the score was 29-0.

You're all over the board on this topic, Future. Pick a theme and either stick with it or admit that you were wrong instead of changing your tune every time someone challenges you on it.

I have no clue what you are talking about, at all. You are using ridiculous examples to prove your point. Playing a good game under no pressure proves what?? I am not contradicting myself or "changing my tune" when I say he played well in the SB. For sone reason you are not connecting the dots where I am stating that he had no pressure. You are not connecting the fielf goal kicking in the redzone to equal playing "good" instead of "outstanding" or "brilliant". You are not connecting that 29-0 ith 90 yds IS NOT sn indictment of your QB, but rather evidence that he was not called upon to do much by his team to get that lead.

For whatever reason, you are either not understanding what I am writing, or you are choosing to reframe it as it suits you.

I don't understand why you would cherry pick two stats out of the Super Bowl, ie total passing yards and TD passes, from Russell Wilson's first half performance, setting aside other relevant stats such as his 3rd down conversions, completion percentage, turnovers, and QB rating, if your point wasn't to show that Wilson's first half SB performance was insignificant relative to the 29-0 score that was the result after Harvin ran back the 2nd half kickoff.

[burrrton]

Playing a good game under no pressure proves what??

The Superbowl. Up 1 score after a quarter plus. "No pressure".

Jeezus.

[Futureite]

I don't understand why you would cherry pick two stats out of the Super Bowl, ie total passing yards and TD passes, from Russell Wilson's first half performance, setting aside other relevant stats such as his 3rd down conversions, completion percentage, turnovers, and QB rating, if your point wasn't to show that Wilson's first half SB performance was insignificant relative to the 29-0 score that was the result after Harvin ran back the 2nd half kickoff.[/quote]

I picked those stats because they are the most impactful and predictive of a QB's effect on the scoreboard. If you score 29 points snd have not thrown for 100 yds or a TD, the points are obviously coming from someone other than the QB. It's hard for me to understand why we are arguing this but more to the point, how you guys are twisting that into some game I am supposedly playing. I mean, ask 10 people if 29 points are scored and the QB has put up those numbers and what are they going to say? " Wow, was tbere a couple fumbles or a pick 6? Did RB x go off? Did return guy x run one back?" If you look at it objectively, any normal person would wonder how it happened. And you'd be hard pressed to find someone that would refer to the QB as the clutch player there.

Like I keep saying, you are in the position to say Kaep folded and RW woukdn't have, and I cannot refute it. I van never prove that he couldn't have won the Champ game under the same circumstances. That's why I conceded. I can however reasonably prove that the pressure was not equal. And that is ALL I have been stating this entire thread.

[burrrton]

If you score 29 points snd have not thrown for 100 yds or a TD, the points are obviously coming from someone other than the QB.

The *points* might be coming from someone other than the QB, but there are a lot of other things that might not (and, in the case of the SB, didn't), and that ignores the fact that it wasn't until the pick-6 that the pressure could even arguably be said to have lifted.

And even at 22-0, did you really think the game was over?? I guarantee Peyton didn't, nor did Russell, nor did I.

I'm sorry if it doesn't fit your view of things, Future, but RW was money under pressure. That he didn't throw for 400 yards in the first half and didn't have to drive 90 yards with 30 seconds left down 6 doesn't change that.

Sometimes stats don't tell the story.

[kalibane]

So now Kaepernick doesn't have one of the best defenses in the league and a strong running game supporting him? Okay Future. Seattle may be stronger on the back end of the defense but SF is slightly stronger in the front seven and much stronger on the offensive line.

Your arguments stink and they change and shift depending on the thread. Wilson beats Kaepernick in ever metric, cummulative and efficiency. That may not always be the case but it is now.

[Futureite]

So now Kaepernick doesn't have one of the best defenses in the league and a strong running game supporting him? Okay Future. Seattle may be stronger on the back end of the defense but SF is slightly stronger in the front seven and much stronger on the offensive line.

Your arguments stink and they change and shift depending on the thread. Wilson beats Kaepernick in ever metric, cummulative and efficiency. That may not always be the case but it is now.

My arguments never change. Ever. Though I love healthy or even heated debate, it is not a debate unless there is risk of losing. And I have admitted I was wrong many times here.

We were not discussing who is better in general. And that's the issue. You guys jump on certain wuotes, phrases or assertions that I make and you run with them. We were debating clutch play. I do not believe last post season provided any evidence of RW as any more clutch than Kaep, if for no other reason than lack of opportunity. That is the only point that I have made here. And I supported that point very well.

[Futureite]

So now Kaepernick doesn't have one of the best defenses in the league and a strong running game supporting him? Okay Future. Seattle may be stronger on the back end of the defense but SF is slightly stronger in the front seven and much stronger on the offensive line.

Your arguments stink and they change and shift depending on the thread. Wilson beats Kaepernick in ever metric, cummulative and efficiency. That may not always be the case but it is now.

You know I have to add: for at least a yr now you have told me my arguments suck, I don't know how to argue, cannot frame an argument. I am just curious what you do for a living. For the past 10 yrs I have argued law everyday. I've had my arguments hacked up by review, read 100s of court cases, and have had more practice than I want arguing. Any person that does any specific thing day after day, year after year will get better at it. Whether it's waiting tables, shooting freethrows or playing horseshoe. Doesn't mean I am any better than you, but unless you work in a field that requires you to do the same, it dies mean I have more experience than you. And the results I have gotten prove in fact that I do not suck, my arguments don't change, and I know how to make them.

So what do you do that makes you so much better than me? And btw, I am plenty fine with being wrong here and I admit that I have been - many times. For example, I admitted your analysis of our wrs was right, mine was wrong. That's just one example.

[burrrton]

I don't know if I, or anyone else, is "better" than you, Future, but you divulging (well, you've divulged it before, iirc) that you're a lawyer actually says volumes.

You're arguing like lawyers do when they got nothing else- burying what you're really saying in layer upon layer of bullshit.

You can't just admit RW is better than Kaep at this point despite what's been demonstrated to this point (not surprising- I might not, either, although I don't spend time on another team's board), so you couch all your 'praise' either in statements that indicate otherwise, or language that does the same.

Like when a politician (usually a lawyer) "apologizes if anyone took offense" rather than just fcking apologizing for saying something stupid, like any normal person would.

Maybe you'd like to argue that Kaep has shown signs that he *will be* better than RW in the future, in which case I'm all ears, but arguing that RW hasn't shown himself to be both "clutch" (defined as performing under pressure) and head-and-shoulders above your QB is pure hogwash.

I don't know if it will continue, but until we start arguing about that (what will be rather than what is), you have no platform to stand on.

[HumanCockroach]

Or simply lie, or refuse to even acknowledge the other side of the debate/ argument. Far, FAR to often this is the way it's done, or simply change or hide the truth in some meaningless drivel like "the eye test" excuse. We all KNOW what Future does, and it is what it is, as for his claim that his "arguments never change" eh whatever, we know the do, we know he lies, and we know he refuses to accept factual evidence when provided where and when he see's fit.Not all lawyers come off as slime, and for all I know Future isn't one that does, however there is a perception of lawyers, that rightly or wrongly exists, and it isn't because they are straight shooters that don't try to twist, manipulate and weasel around facts to prove their "arguments" accurate.

admitting he is a lawyer ( which he has done before to "prove" his arguments validty) certainly isn't helping his creditbility, any more than someone telling me they are an honest man because they are a used car salesman...

[Anthony]

It's still all meaningless clap trap. Kapernick enjoys pretty much all the same advantages that Wilson enjoys. Kaep isn't asked to do more than Wilson and at the end of the day Wilson does it better whether Lynch runs well or not. All Future has are excuses. Excuses that change depending on the thread.

"Kaepernick enjoys pretty much all the same advatages that Wilson does".

Lynch 100+ yds
Gore 16 yds
Home in Seattle = advantage Wilson.
Pass rush = advantage Wilson.
Pass D = Huge advantage Wilson.

No way in god's fn green earth your QB comes into Clink as the opposing QB and plays any better or wins that game. Maybe early in the yr when he put up a whopping 12 pts and again fumbled in the redzone V a similar D in Carolina but overall put up 300 yds.. But against your D at that point in the yr? Game set match. Sorry the national radio was all over his play V the Saints, the week before and it was not very good.

Seriously look at your post: " . . Enjoys the same advantages". For sure. Like that stadium alone is not a titanic obstacle to overcome and has given HOF QBs like Rogers and Brees fits. As if a 100 yd rusher compared to 16 yds is not an gigantic advantage for any QB. Jesus who would even argue these things.

The personal attacks are getting fn old dude. That's literally all you guys come with now.

You know I try hard to get personnel but you make it hard your moronic attempts to state facts that are not facts relevant is pathetic, Let me help you

SF total d ranked 5th
Seattle ranked 1

IN other words both top 5 both have an advantage

SF run game ranked 3rd
Seattle ranked 4th

Again both top 5 have the same advantage

Enough said your wrong as usual

[Anthony]

I don't understand why you would cherry pick two stats out of the Super Bowl, ie total passing yards and TD passes, from Russell Wilson's first half performance, setting aside other relevant stats such as his 3rd down conversions, completion percentage, turnovers, and QB rating, if your point wasn't to show that Wilson's first half SB performance was insignificant relative to the 29-0 score that was the result after Harvin ran back the 2nd half kickoff.

I picked those stats because they are the most impactful and predictive of a QB's effect on the scoreboard. If you score 29 points snd have not thrown for 100 yds or a TD, the points are obviously coming from someone other than the QB. It's hard for me to understand why we are arguing this but more to the point, how you guys are twisting that into some game I am supposedly playing. I mean, ask 10 people if 29 points are scored and the QB has put up those numbers and what are they going to say? " Wow, was tbere a couple fumbles or a pick 6? Did RB x go off? Did return guy x run one back?" If you look at it objectively, any normal person would wonder how it happened. And you'd be hard pressed to find someone that would refer to the QB as the clutch player there.

Like I keep saying, you are in the position to say Kaep folded and RW woukdn't have, and I cannot refute it. I van never prove that he couldn't have won the Champ game under the same circumstances. That's why I conceded. I can however reasonably prove that the pressure was not equal. And that is ALL I have been stating this entire thread.[/quote]

I already showed why you are wrong here, every score we made on offense was either by RW, or set up by RW and his clutch 3r4d down plays, that's a facts deal with and now your still wrong.

[Anthony]

So now Kaepernick doesn't have one of the best defenses in the league and a strong running game supporting him? Okay Future. Seattle may be stronger on the back end of the defense but SF is slightly stronger in the front seven and much stronger on the offensive line.

Your arguments stink and they change and shift depending on the thread. Wilson beats Kaepernick in ever metric, cummulative and efficiency. That may not always be the case but it is now.

My arguments never change. Ever. Though I love healthy or even heated debate, it is not a debate unless there is risk of losing. And I have admitted I was wrong many times here.

We were not discussing who is better in general. And that's the issue. You guys jump on certain wuotes, phrases or assertions that I make and you run with them. We were debating clutch play. I do not believe last post season provided any evidence of RW as any more clutch than Kaep, if for no other reason than lack of opportunity. That is the only point that I have made here. And I supported that point very well.

Dude they are correct you keep changing stories, stances, and provide incorrect or partial facts and when your caught you change again.

[burrrton]

there is a perception of lawyers, that rightly or wrongly exists, and it isn't because they are straight shooters that don't try to twist, manipulate and weasel around facts to prove their "arguments" accurate.

That's what being a lawyer is all about in many instances. Go try to defend some sh*tstain like Nidal Hasan (or KSM, to pick a couple easy and prominent ones) without doing that.

It's what they do. They're good at it. It's just not transparent to everyone at all times like they hope it is.

[Futureite]

Or simply lie, or refuse to even acknowledge the other side of the debate/ argument. Far, FAR to often this is the way it's done, or simply change or hide the truth in some meaningless drivel like "the eye test" excuse. We all KNOW what Future does, and it is what it is, as for his claim that his "arguments never change" eh whatever, we know the do, we know he lies, and we know he refuses to accept factual evidence when provided where and when he see's fit.Not all lawyers come off as slime, and for all I know Future isn't one that does, however there is a perception of lawyers, that rightly or wrongly exists, and it isn't because they are straight shooters that don't try to twist, manipulate and weasel around facts to prove their "arguments" accurate.

admitting he is a lawyer ( which he has done before to "prove" his arguments validty) certainly isn't helping his creditbility, any more than someone telling me they are an honest man because they are a used car salesman...

This is flat out ridiculous. And I am kinda over it. It's no longer really fun for me at this point. Some of you just cannot quit with the character assault. The big "lie" I told hear was the quote I heard RW say with my own two ears. It is laughable how far you guys took that. Honestly. You built him up and rhis entire rivalry to be more than what it is, where your white knights are better than the villains by the bay and of course, better than a lying manipulative fan of that team like myself. This is why some of you are shocked that he got a divorce and why you so vehemently argued against the notion that Kaepernick could be anywhere near his moral footing, work ethic or leadership. It's all ridiculous, fit more for a shaekspeaer play than real life.

I am not the bad guy and you are not the good guy. I don't lie, manipulate people or antagonize people. I am not perfect and I tried many times to tell you your QB wasn't either. Some people just don't get it. There was a reason you didn't see me here for the month or so, and maybe it is time for another break.

[Anthony]

Or simply lie, or refuse to even acknowledge the other side of the debate/ argument. Far, FAR to often this is the way it's done, or simply change or hide the truth in some meaningless drivel like "the eye test" excuse. We all KNOW what Future does, and it is what it is, as for his claim that his "arguments never change" eh whatever, we know the do, we know he lies, and we know he refuses to accept factual evidence when provided where and when he see's fit.Not all lawyers come off as slime, and for all I know Future isn't one that does, however there is a perception of lawyers, that rightly or wrongly exists, and it isn't because they are straight shooters that don't try to twist, manipulate and weasel around facts to prove their "arguments" accurate.

admitting he is a lawyer ( which he has done before to "prove" his arguments validty) certainly isn't helping his creditbility, any more than someone telling me they are an honest man because they are a used car salesman...

This is flat out ridiculous. And I am kinda over it. It's no longer really fun for me at this point. Some of you just cannot quit with the character assault. The big "lie" I told hear was the quote I heard RW say with my own two ears. It is laughable how far you guys took that. Honestly. You built him up and rhis entire rivalry to be more than what it is, where your white knights are better than the villains by the bay and of course, better than a lying manipulative fan of that team like myself. This is why some of you are shocked that he got a divorce and why you so vehemently argued against the notion that Kaepernick could be anywhere near his moral footing, work ethic or leadership. It's all ridiculous, fit more for a shaekspeaer play than real life.

I am not the bad guy and you are not the good guy. I don't lie, manipulate people or antagonize people. I am not perfect and I tried many times to tell you your QB wasn't either. Some people just don't get it. There was a reason you didn't see me here for the month or so, and maybe it is time for another break.

you mean the quote no one else heard, no one can find anything on, the quote that was complete BS and you know it. You do not like we call it like we see it, then leave and do not come back. By the way please do not think we really do not know why you left for a while, it is what you do, run when you get caught. Your caught go run.

[HumanCockroach]

Or simply lie, or refuse to even acknowledge the other side of the debate/ argument. Far, FAR to often this is the way it's done, or simply change or hide the truth in some meaningless drivel like "the eye test" excuse. We all KNOW what Future does, and it is what it is, as for his claim that his "arguments never change" eh whatever, we know the do, we know he lies, and we know he refuses to accept factual evidence when provided where and when he see's fit.Not all lawyers come off as slime, and for all I know Future isn't one that does, however there is a perception of lawyers, that rightly or wrongly exists, and it isn't because they are straight shooters that don't try to twist, manipulate and weasel around facts to prove their "arguments" accurate.

admitting he is a lawyer ( which he has done before to "prove" his arguments validty) certainly isn't helping his creditbility, any more than someone telling me they are an honest man because they are a used car salesman...

This is flat out ridiculous. And I am kinda over it. It's no longer really fun for me at this point. Some of you just cannot quit with the character assault. The big "lie" I told hear was the quote I heard RW say with my own two ears. It is laughable how far you guys took that. Honestly. You built him up and rhis entire rivalry to be more than what it is, where your white knights are better than the villains by the bay and of course, better than a lying manipulative fan of that team like myself. This is why some of you are shocked that he got a divorce and why you so vehemently argued against the notion that Kaepernick could be anywhere near his moral footing, work ethic or leadership. It's all ridiculous, fit more for a shaekspeaer play than real life.

I am not the bad guy and you are not the good guy. I don't lie, manipulate people or antagonize people. I am not perfect and I tried many times to tell you your QB wasn't either. Some people just don't get it. There was a reason you didn't see me here for the month or so, and maybe it is time for another break.

LOL. OK. Take another break. I'm sure we can find a way to manage without you for a time.

[kalibane]

Pulling the real life card Future? How does it matter what I do for a living? I'm almost tempted to answer you just because it'd be kind of funny. And if we ever do meet for a beer I will, it's not like I have something to hide. But to give you an answer would to dignify that ridiculous straw man, so I do not see the point.

Being in a given profession doesn't mean anything. If you're a lawyer or in the legal field then you know full well how many completely clueless attorneys there are floating out there. Having a law degree doesn't mean you know how to fashion good arguments. It means you know the law. There are not that many trial attorneys (relatively speaking) and the little time most attorneys spend in court consists of filing briefs, checking off procedural boxes and little actual argument. And certainly not back and forth debate. And trial attorneys, being a good public speaker, organization and being relatable is probably more important to being a good trial attorney than being good at point for point debate.

Still what it boils down to is the Seahawks were a little better than San Francisco last year and one of the main reasons was Russell Wilson. If you want to argue against that point and don't want me to tell you your arguments stink in response, then maybe you shouldn't cite an "interception" that bounced off the WR's hand/ground as an example of a QB blowing it in the clutch. That was a terrible point you attempted to make. And that's just one example from this thread.

[RiverDog]

I picked those stats because they are the most impactful and predictive of a QB's effect on the scoreboard. If you score 29 points snd have not thrown for 100 yds or a TD, the points are obviously coming from someone other than the QB. It's hard for me to understand why we are arguing this but more to the point, how you guys are twisting that into some game I am supposedly playing. I mean, ask 10 people if 29 points are scored and the QB has put up those numbers and what are they going to say? " Wow, was tbere a couple fumbles or a pick 6? Did RB x go off? Did return guy x run one back?" If you look at it objectively, any normal person would wonder how it happened. And you'd be hard pressed to find someone that would refer to the QB as the clutch player there.

Like I keep saying, you are in the position to say Kaep folded and RW woukdn't have, and I cannot refute it. I van never prove that he couldn't have won the Champ game under the same circumstances. That's why I conceded. I can however reasonably prove that the pressure was not equal. And that is ALL I have been stating this entire thread.

I completely disagree. What about turnovers? Wouldn't those have an impactful and predictive effect on the scoreboard? Russell had zero. It was one of the factors that allowed our defense to play like they did. Denver always had long fields to negotiate, and part of that was due to the fact that our offense didn't turn the ball over and converted on third downs, and the largest contributing factor in that was the play of our quarterback.

You picked those stats, TD passes and passing yards, because they just happened to fit your argument. There are a half dozen other stats by which to measure a QB's performance that were just as reflective, if not more so, as the two you singled out. If those stats were as impactful and predictive as you claim they are, the experts would have given them much more weight when calculating a QB rating.

Instead of 90 yards and 0 TD passes, if Russell had thrown for 3 TD's and 200 yards yet had 3 INT's, two of them a pick 6 and a third that set up a Denver score, which half of football would you have judged as the better performance?

And btw, I am plenty fine with being wrong here and I admit that I have been - many times.

If you are true to your word, then you'd better fess up on this one because you are obviously very wrong in your exclusion of a half dozen quarterbacking metrics as being insignificant compared to the two you chose to use to support your flawed argument.