naiwf

I couldn't agree more.

When you're up 59-0 at the half, I'd say it's pretty obvious you might just barely be the better team.

Did you not read that Christian schools were involved? They were employing the press when they were up by 80+ and raucously cheering as they got closer to 100 points. If they didn't fire the coach there would have been a lot more controversy surrounding the outcome of the game. You can't "teach" at a Christian school and get off on burying a clearly inferior group of kids. http://www.cbssports.com/general/story/11300892

The coach of the winning team was fired on a Sunday. I found that quite amusing.

That was neat, but him inadvertantly winning the match for Austin really set the tone for what's been a fairly lousy career for him in WWE. The general consensus in late 98/early 99 was that McMahon could make this guy a monster heel and that he'd be a perfect foil for Austin, but none of that ever really materialized. I mean, they were teasing a face turn almost immediately upon his debut, and he's since gone on to make dozens of inexplicable turns that have totally ruined his character in WWE. Same deal with Kane. I didn't have much hope for Vince doing well with Show because he couldn't make things work with Vader who wrestled the perfect style for a big man. While he wasn't nearly as tall as Show I think he was easily the most menacing looking guy I ever got the chance to see, and the WWF pretty much neutered him into a "fat piece of shit".

Lights out.

That argument definitely makes sense. I don't know how I feel about Simms as a HOFer, but as someone who watched him play a lot more than Warner I'd say that Warner was clearly a better QB during their respective primes. I don't really remember the Rams having much of a defense, and while their offense was clearly better than anything the Giants have ever had I would still have taken Warner as my QB over Simms. I know that Simms picked up that 2nd ring, but Hostetler was the one who was at the helm for that SB and Warner's 2 MVPs put him over the top at least to me. Simms had 74 more starts than Warner does now but only has about 250 more completions in 1,100 extra attempts as well as just under 5,000 more yards and 17 more TDs (but 43 more picks). Basically speaking they're very similar in terms of stats with Simms having an extra 4 1/2 seasons of starts.

What other 2 time league MVP had to wait 7 or 8 years to get in? Warner's peak is up there with any QB that ever played in the league, and if he wins next Sunday he'll have 2 rings to go with his 2 MVPs & Super Bowl MVP. Regardless of what he did in the other years there's really not a whole lot to justify making him wait that long to get in considering he should easily get to 30,000 yards and 200 TDs if he comes back for another season. He's the NFL's version of Sandy Koufax.

The problem is that they don't seem to be willing to use them. Look at who they've signed this offseason and who was available. They only got K-Rod because he signed for pennies on the dollar relative to what he was expecting and have steered clear of anyone who is asking for more than a short term/incentive laden contract. We don't have legit starters at 2B, LF and there are still a lot of question marks in the rotation and RF as well. Stockpiling a bunch of # 6 starters is not going to be the answer, but that seems to be what Omar's been busy doing since he got K-Rod & Putz.

Did you really want them to sign him for 4 yrs/$100 million or whatever his ridiculous demands are? In other news of the truly exciting, it looks like Craig Counsell will be back with the Brewers. Reportedly 1 yr/$1 million. Not actually a terrible move if he doesn't play too much. It's not my money, so why not? We don't have a decent corner outfielder on the team or a guy who has proven he can hit in September & October. Any money they shell out on Manny would be recouped from jersey and/or ticket sales and increased interest in the team. It's not like we're asking them to break the bank for a capable bat with little to no name value. It doesn't matter though since the Mets won't go after Hudson because they're too stubborn to just eat Castillo's contract and send him away. The Mets may be the only professional sports franchise who will spend well over $100 million on payroll and then worry about nickels and dimes (Hudson not Manny) with a new stadium opening up.

Nice to see that Yi didn't taint the game with an undeserved starting nod. It's also interesting that Dwight Howard got that many votes. Amare's total looks really low for a starting player, especially compared to the numbers most of his teammates got.

Final Score - Arizona 27-24 MVP - Kurt Warner Passing Leader - Kurt Warner Rushing Leader - Willie Parker Receiving Leader - Larry Fitzgerald

I'm not a Yankees fan, so I don't what that's like. My whole argument is that as a fan who has witnessed the Giants win 3 titles and the Mets win 1 with gaping holes of suckiness surrounding those victories, I can honestly say that those seasons where they won were enough to make up for it. The Knicks are the only pro team I support that hasn't won a title in my lifetime, yet they went to the playoffs 14 years in a row at one point (which is 2 less than the number of playoff appearances by the Mets AND Giants since '86) and to me that doesn't mean much because they ultimately came up short every year. If they had won in '94 or '99 it would surely make the last 10 years a lot easier to tolerate. Watching the Mets choke like dogs down the stretch two years in a row after being beaten by an inferior Cardinals team in the 2006 NLCS is right up there with the 84/90/103 loss stretch between 1991 & 1993 in terms of how much fun it was to watch. I guess we just approach fandom from a different place.

But there are many types of fans out there. This may work for you, but for me a title is not the be-all, end-all of my experience. I love the thrill of the hunt. For me, I live for the emotions and gamesmanship of free agency; the nailbiting at the trade deadlines; sitting in front of the TV for four hours on a Tuesday night for a meaningless mid-season game; and arguing about the team over a pitcher of beer with some buddies at a bar. I just want to wake up every day and know that my team has a shot, any shot, to win a game. Of the three teams I actively follow I've gotten to see two titles during my lifetime (both in the last four years by the Red Sox). Sure, that moment when the last pitch was made is a special feeling that I'll have forever, but I'll admit that I was ready a week later for the offseason to start and the whole process to begin a new. I'd be miserable if the team decided to just tank it after '04. Watching the Raiders and Kings right now is a chore. Sure, there are no titles for either team, but even if they both had gotten them in early '00s I don't think this would be any easier to watch. I just can't get myself to care for mediocrity, no matter what the circumstances. I can honestly say you're probably the only BoSox fan out there who wouldn't care if the team was still hearing chants of "19-18" as long as they were in the hunt every year. I'd wager that the average fan out there would take a decade of mediocrity or worse if they were guaranteed a title every 11th year over a team that never wins anything but makes the playoffs for 20 straight years.

Says the guy whose team just won the title. I'm sure you'd prefer to be a Cubs fan since that hunt has been epic. 100 years and counting bay-bee! As a Knicks fan who suffered through one Jordan punch to the balls after another and then the Dolan/Layden/Isiah era. I can say I got no more enjoyment out of suffering crushing postseason defeats than I do out of knowing my team has no chance to win 41 games until at least 2010. I'd GLADLY trade all of those years of sellout crowds at MSG and memorable games for 1 title before I die. IMHO, anyone who would prefer a consistently good team that never wins but is in the mix every year to a team that does win and then fades for a while is either masochistic or lying.

QBs are treated differently because they "control" the game. Listen to any former QB who is an analyst and they'll mention it. If a QB is hot on any given Sunday they can carry their team to a win. A RB still needs to rely on linemen to open up holes (unless they're Barry Sanders) and an occasional missed/broken tackle to really contribute something to the offense. If the QB shits the bed early and you're down by 14+ that stud RB becomes virtually useless. There's a reason that people don't trust rookie QBs, but you never hear anyone mention anything about pressure being placed on rookie RBs, WRs, etc. Belichick almost ruined Peyton Manning's legacy singlehandedly by making him look like a scrub in the playoffs year after year.

why didnt Obama..er..PRESIDENT Obama do something? Were you expecting him to heal them by letting them touch the hem of his garment or something?

How can you blame Barry when he was the only guy on his team that was any good? It's amazing that he only had 20 carries a game for his entire career and still averaged almost 100 yards on the ground per game. The fact that he only touched the ball about 22 times a game (if you add in receptions) and put up the numbers he did on dreadful teams just shows how great he was. QBs touch the ball on just about every offensive play and the vast majority of the time Barry was running against 7 or 8 in the box and still put up legendary numbers when he was the only real threat on offense. I only wish he would have played on a better team so I would have been able to see more of him.

Barry Bonds put up the single greatest playoff performance ever during the 2002 run. In the World Series alone he had an OPS of 1.994. 1.994! He did everything physically possible to win that year and his team let him down. I don't see that as a blemish at all. I was talking about the playoffs before that year. If you remember the games during that year, that was ALL the announcers talked about every time he came up to the plate. I felt bad for him because they were so close and he did everything he could to win it. It reminded me of the 1994 NBA Finals when Ewing had a title within his reach and then John Starks shot his way into the record books with one of the worst games ever played and that was as close as he ever got. On a tangential note to that, Olajuwon winning the 2 titles while Jordan was away did a lot to elevate his career as well. If Jordan hadn't decided to retire after the first three-peat who knows if he wouldn't be lumped in with the other victims of the Jordan era.

I can't believe I forgot all about A-Rod. The guy should retire as the HR and RBI king, with 3,000+ hits and who knows how many other records to his credit. However, if he doesn't end up winning a ring with the Yankees I'm sure a lot of people will think that all of those numbers are hollow. Aside from the steroid controversy, the biggest blemish on Barry Bonds' career was that he didn't perform well in the playoffs. If the Giants had beaten the Angels a few years ago, there would be no holes in his resume. History will also remember guys like KG, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen a lot differently thanks to last year than they would have if they had been left as the best players on three bad teams.

I'm going to say when comparing similarly skilled guys that the number of titles won is decisive. If Dan Marino had won a championship there's no doubt he'd be remembered as one of the 2 or 3 best to ever play the position without any qualifications. Instead all you hear is, "he was great, BUT. . . ". Elway's status was elevated immensely because he won those two titles and then headed off into the sunset. If Kurt Warner wins his 2nd title in a couple of weeks, he's a first ballot HoFer. If not, he's borderline. If he'd never won a title he would have just been a flashier version of Drew Brees during "The Greatest Show on Turf" days. Peyton Manning was viewed as a choker of the highest order until the defense finally showed up and he won his ring. Now, when Peyton leads the Colts to another 10+ wins and another early playoff loss it doesn't sting so much because he got that one title. Another example I'll use is the insane amount of hype that has been put on LeBron's shoulders. Yes, he's great. But can we lay off the comparisons to Jordan until he wins a single MVP or championship please? He may be the most talented player in the league, but until he wins one he has the dubious "honor" of being in the discussion with guys like Barkley, Stockton, Malone, Ewing etc as the most talented player to never win a ring.

There's a whole lot of revisionist history going on in that post. The Giants that won the SB last year did not have a "phenomenal" running game or a "tremendous" receiving corps. In the playoffs they ran 30 times for 100 yards and a TD against TB, while Eli was 20-27 for 185 and 2 TDs Against Dallas, 23 rushes for 90 and a TD, while Eli was 12-18 for 163 and 2 TDs. In Green Bay, 39 rushes for 134 and 2 TDs, while Eli was 21-40 for 254. In the SB, 26 rushes for 91, while Eli was 19-34 for 255 with 2 TDs and a pick. That running game carried the ball 118 times for 415 yards which is about 3.5 yards a pop. No individual had more than 67 yards in any game and Bradshaw was probably the most effective back we had. They accounted for 4 of the 10 TDs the team scored and rarely sparked the offense. THIS year's team was run dominant, not the one that won it. And the receiving corps was Plax and a bunch of other guys. Outside of Burress there was no one on the Giants that would have started for any other playoff team in the league. Let's not act like that offense was loaded. The defense held teams in check, but Eli pretty much was asked to win the last two games which he did because Tynes missed 2 FGs at Lambeau, and Eli kept getting us in position to win, and everyone knows about the final drive in the SB. When McNabb is given a chance to win the big one on the final drive and actually does it, I'll admit I was wrong.

He does. If Eli hadn't won it all last year, I think there's the distinct possibility that the Giants would have been looking for a new QB in a couple of years when his deal ends. I can't believe that sports fans are arguing about whether winning championships are important or not when evaluating players. I would have thought that the average sports fan would rather root for a dreadful franchise like the Marlins who have won 2 titles in their short existence and sucked just about every other season than be along for the ride during the Braves' "dynasty" of 13 straight divisions and only 1 championship, but it seems like that's not the case here.

I don't think anyone in this thread has said Eli was BETTER than McNabb. I know that I said, I'd rather have Eli as my QB because he proved he could win a SB, while McNabb has not. I also said, I'd rather have Eli's career because they can't take away the fact he won a SB (and was the MVP of the game). McNabb will probably be a HOFer, but that doesn't mean he's ever going to be a champion. If Philly wants a guy with great stats every year, they should keep him. If they ever want to win a title, they need to look elsewhere before we're in 2014 he's 37-38 and they have no choice but to draft another QB high in the draft with Kolb never getting a chance.

That's mainly because the QB gets all the blame and all of the glory even when they don't deserve it. Big Ben played like shit in the SB, but no one references that. McNabb may be the reason they get where they do every year, but at some point you've got to break through when you've been as far as the Conference Championship game five times in eight years. The one time McNabb had a stud receiver he played just poorly enough (3 picks) in the SB that they lost despite a 30/51 for 357 with 3 TD effort. I don't blame HIM for the failures of the team, but there's even less concrete evidence that keeping him is going to result in a title some day. He's onto his second decade in the league, plays in a brutal division and hasn't proven that he can come up big when it matters most. If they keep this core intact they'll end up like the Buffalo Bills of the '90s with a decade of high profile losses followed up by a decade of mediocrity because they're just good enough to get lower draft picks and have to try to win now because they're "close". The whole argument I am making, is that keeping McNabb doesn't improve the Eagles and they're not good enough as presently constituted to win a title.