|
|
#31
10-17-2005, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who\'s gonna win the NFC?
Of course Schaub's a better passer. That will never be in question.
Vick is a better offensive player, and will result in more wins than Schaub though. Bar none. Let's pretend it's baseball. Farnsworth is a better fastball pitcher than, say, John Thompson. However, I would never in my wildest dreams want to call Farnsworth a better pitcher than Thompson, or play him over Thompson. Also, you can't say that ATL has an easy schedule when they get to play "the travelling injury squad of New England," and then fall all over Matt Schaub for his performance over the same "travelling injury squad" who had been prepping all week for a matchup against Mike Vick. 
|
|
#32
10-17-2005, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who\'s gonna win the NFC?
[ QUOTE ]
The Seahawks. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (yeah, it's completely homerish, but it's as good a guess as any right now) [/ QUOTE ] If they ever learn to play 4 full quarters, maybe... God they're painful to watch. b
|
|
#33
10-17-2005, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who\'s gonna win the NFC?
[ QUOTE ]
3)Seattle - probably the only team in their division that will finish over .500. Should just cakewalk to 10,11 wins just by beating up NFC West teams [/ QUOTE ] One would think it's a cakewalk. But this is Seattle. They tend to make it as tough as possible on themselves to win. b
|
|
#34
10-17-2005, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who\'s gonna win the NFC?
[ QUOTE ]
Of course Schaub's a better passer. That will never be in question. Vick is a better offensive player, and will result in more wins than Schaub though. Bar none. Let's pretend it's baseball. Farnsworth is a better fastball pitcher than, say, John Thompson. However, I would never in my wildest dreams want to call Farnsworth a better pitcher than Thompson, or play him over Thompson. [/ QUOTE ] The problem with this analogy is that quarterbacks are much more valuable than running backs. I know it's cliche to call Mike Vick a running back, there's no question most of Mike's value comes from his running. The most valuable running back is never, ever more valuable than the most valuable quarterback. [ QUOTE ] Also, you can't say that ATL has an easy schedule when they get to play "the travelling injury squad of New England," and then fall all over Matt Schaub for his performance over the same "travelling injury squad" who had been prepping all week for a matchup against Mike Vick. [/ QUOTE ] Well, sure, but I think we can all agree that the New England secondary is about equal to or better than the Saints secondary, right? Vick hasn't thrown for 200 yards at all this year. Schaub nearly dropped 300 on New England.
|
|
#35
10-17-2005, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who\'s gonna win the NFC?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
The problem with this analogy is that quarterbacks are much more valuable than running backs. I know it's cliche to call Mike Vick a running back, there's no question most of Mike's value comes from his running. The most valuable running back is never, ever more valuable than the most valuable quarterback. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. </font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr /> Well, sure, but I think we can all agree that the New England secondary is about equal to or better than the Saints secondary, right? Vick hasn't thrown for 200 yards at all this year. Schaub nearly dropped 300 on New England. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough again. I still want Vick under center for ever and always, but Schaub's not bad to have on the bench in case Vick gets injured. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#36
10-17-2005, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who\'s gonna win the NFC?
[ QUOTE ]
da Bears. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is too far off, there D PWNS.
|
|
#37
10-17-2005, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who\'s gonna win the NFC?
Well... it's looking now like Minnesota's going to be 12-4 and I'm not sure anyone else can beat 12-4...
|
|
#38
10-17-2005, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who\'s gonna win the NFC?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The problem with this analogy is that quarterbacks are much more valuable than running backs. I know it's cliche to call Mike Vick a running back, there's no question most of Mike's value comes from his running. The most valuable running back is never, ever more valuable than the most valuable quarterback. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. [ QUOTE ] Well, sure, but I think we can all agree that the New England secondary is about equal to or better than the Saints secondary, right? Vick hasn't thrown for 200 yards at all this year. Schaub nearly dropped 300 on New England. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough again. I still want Vick under center for ever and always, but Schaub's not bad to have on the bench in case Vick gets injured. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Like I said, there are so many other reasons why you start Vick over Schaub. Of course, if Vick starts losing (and since they almost ALWAYS play close games, that will probably come sooner or later), I think there's a chance that Vick stops being the most popular player in the game...
|
|
#39
10-17-2005, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
philly
philly. shockingly i might put washington 2. extremely good defense. gibbs is finding alot of passing o this yr. bledsoe will fold down the stretch and glenn will get hurt.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
