Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[Futureshock]

How annoying is DWT poll?!

Im no where near as informed as you guys, but I read Dwt's posts and think, "fkn right, mate"......., then someone calls him an asshole, and I have to go back and re-read it.

Would it be correct to say that all DWT is guilty of is not having a decent replacement for Fatt Stafford? Everything else is accurate? No?

Awesome thread by the way.

And repeating it and weaving it into every thread and discussion.

Also, no one can say with an absolute certainty what the future holds. So to say someone will never do something is a bit much. I don't like absolutes. More often then not they tend to be wrong.

[chemiclord]

Well, that and not understanding what makes good QB play, considering how he's lauded Peyton Manning the last couple of years.

And his overestimation of QB play and how you NEED an "elite" QB to have success (see also, Peyton Manning).

[Marko69]

@ Futureshock: True. In fact, VERY true. Everyone said this season, no way would STUBBSY end the 114 year wait for the Scottish cup......., and it happened.

[Futureshock]

Yup. That's why they actually have to play games.

[dwt1]

Well, that and not understanding what makes good QB play, considering how he's lauded Peyton Manning the last couple of years.

And his overestimation of QB play and how you NEED an "elite" QB to have success (see also, Peyton Manning).

Actually, I haven't lauded Manning the last couple of year....why must you make stuff up? I did point out, without Manning making plays that led to scores - they don't get to the Super Bowl this year.

Oh and it's not my overestimation, it's a fact. You want to be an elite team, a dynasty, you need an elite. History shows you that. Chicago, Tampa, Baltimore are all teams that had elite defenses for many years - all three of them combined have been to less Super Bowls than New England.

[dpatnod]

Dynasties in Football are a thing of the past.

[dwt1]

Really? New England, a team who has played in 7 of the last 19 Super Bowls and will be competitive for the next Super Bowl, is a thing of the past? Seattle, who has played in two of the last three and will be competitive for the next several, is a thing of the past? Pittsburg, a team that has play in 3 of the last 11 Super Bowls is a thing of the past?

[dpatnod]

Yes, really. Teams are more likely to have windows these days.


Seattle's is closing.


Pittsburg, meh.


New England is the closest thing to a dynasty I would say. But the days when there were teams like the Cowgirls going to the playoffs every year for 18 years straight (except for skipping 1974) are coming to an end.


Parity is real. Except for the Leos.

[dwt1]

Seattle is closing? Based on what? They have won at games 10 games each year since Wilson entered the league and have made the playoffs 4 years in a row - there is no indication that is going to end anytime soon. Oh and BTW - Green Bay has made the playoffs 18 (to include the last 7) out of the last 23 years - they are a dynasty too.

Man, you just love to make shit up.

You truly have no fucking clue do you - here let me help you out. Here's what parity has done. Only about 8% of NFL players are elite, that is based on an analysis of the drafts over the last 30 years. 16% of draft picks do not make the league - therefore about 75% of all players in the NFL are just average. So every team has a bunch of average players and 3 or 4 elite players - over the long run it comes down to whose 3 or 4 elite players are better and if you have an elite QB, you are golden and stand a damn good chance of being a dynasty team.

[dpatnod]

Seattle's financial situation is changing drastically right now.

GB? F the cheeseheads. They're competitive. But not many SB wins recently. 96 and 2010. That's a dynasty?

Frequent Division winner, granted. Not a dynasty. An NFL sweetheart for sure. Very much a player in playoffs - not a SB winning 'dynasty'. SB repeats are very rare these days dude. Three-peats? How long has it been since that happened?

Dynasties are a thing of the past.

And I diddly-liddly love the EIEIO numbers too, but the CBA has changed the nature of the NFL. Really. The cap era has changed, the dynasty thing is a memory.

And I made none of that shit up.

[dpatnod]

But have no fear. I have it on good authority that Payton Manning will come out of retirement mid-season and lead the honolulu blue to the promised land.

Go Lions!

[Marko69]

Dynasties in Football are a thing of the past.

And thank the sweet mother of Jaysus Dynasty on the TV is a thing of the past also.

[dwt1]

Seattle's financial situation is changing drastically right now.

GB? F the cheeseheads. They're competitive. But not many SB wins recently. 96 and 2010. That's a dynasty?

Frequent Division winner, granted. Not a dynasty. An NFL sweetheart for sure. Very much a player in playoffs - not a SB winning 'dynasty'. SB repeats are very rare these days dude. Three-peats? How long has it been since that happened?

Dynasties are a thing of the past.

And I diddly-liddly love the EIEIO numbers too, but the CBA has changed the nature of the NFL. Really. The cap era has changed, the dynasty thing is a memory.

And I made none of that shit up.

Come on really? Seattle went back to back in Super Bowl, Denver has been in two of the last three Super Bowls. New England has played in the last 5 AFC Championship games

As long as Seattle can keep paying Wilson they will be a Super Bowl contender and a dynasty.

CBA does NOT effect the very few elite player that make a difference in the outcomes of game in the NFL.

[chemiclord]

None of those teams would be considered "dynasties" in the way they are traditionally defined, and you know it.

No one calls the Buffalo Bills of the 90's a dynasty. Just making it to the Super Bowl isn't good enough. Conference championships? Not good enough either. To be a dynasty, you need to win the Lombardi trophy frequently.

[dpatnod]

That is the definition of the term I am familiar with.


Maybe we need a glossary thread to define terms.