Senior Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,181 Pro Bowler

1 Follower

About Narcosys


  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

13,078 profile views
  1. Ha! Not with our O-line.
  2. Our 15th pick is worth way more than their 82nd and 101st pick. It's going to take their 1st and first 3rd rd to be even.
  3. I skimmed through the first page of this special here's my thoughts. Yes we's hard to believe luck is starting his 6th year now; even though we made the playoffs, we had no real business being there. We were lucky. Luck has not impressed me all that much, with his inability to lead receivers consistently. Out front office and coaching has failed the team, even though Pagano did the best he could with what he had to work with. With the moves TEN, JAX, and HOU have been making, I don't see us being very successful in making the playoffs consistently and don't see us winning a SB in the second half of lucks career.
  4. Exactly, considering Elway managed an AFL team before becoming the Broncos gm.
  5. Why is this still an active topic?
  6. Is this guy for real? What we got was no where near what we lost.
  7. If necessary, drop swoope and keep Doyle.
  8. I loved their release statement, made it sound like it was a good thing. "First time in the shows history Colts are eligible to participate on HBO'S hard knocks." For the first time in awhile we suck.
  9. So is saying humans must breath oxygen to survive, but that's not a logical fallacy. All things being equal, I would say they are equal. Two QB's with exact same stats but played on different teams, or same team different era, but one team has more championships than another means the team performed better. You cannot fault or elevate either QB because of the team. It becomes a personal opinion at that point. One we can't agree on. Thanks for the discussion.
  10. We're not talking about one guy, when talking about goat, we're talking about all. With that, we must consider all qbs and hpw they stack. I'm not talking about the rings and his greatness, I'm talking about the idea of rings and them being able to be objectively measured. Do you consider Bradshaw to be a better QB than Marino, if not, then why? It will be because of his defense, and his stats and other things. There are far too many factors that determine a championship, to solely credit it to a QB. This makes it an impossible factor to be objectively about. Therefore, it cannot be used as a factor. So if you want to consider that blank and white so be it. However, it is after careful consideration of everything that goes into it, that i think it should be excluded. If that's what you consider black and white, then everything that comes out of the scientific process is a logical fallacy. You can point to his stats, you can point to his performance under pressure, those are mostly individual achievements and can be objectively measured. The same cannot be said about a championship. A QB alone throws the ball accurately, a QB alone does not win a championship. It can very easily be argued, because of the close game, that the defense of the Patriots in the second half had just as much, if not more, of a factor in winning that game than he did. They forced turnovers, they stopped drives. You can also argue that tyne three penalties on 3rd down helped brady to score. You can point to the holding penalty that pushed the Falcons out of field goal range as a factor in letting brady tie. Without that penalty, the field goal is probable, and the Falcons win. They're are so many what if's and subjectivity in a game that a win or loss cannot be solely attributed, and therefore cannot be a factor in determining greatness. How many times do people say, "oh that QB didn't lose it, the defense did"? (Ie. Colts fans). I'm not arguing that he isn't the greatest. He is top 3, arguably #1. I'm saying that because of all things considered, championships cannot be factored into it. Which your last paragraph all but agrees with.
  11. First off both of those fallacies are wrong. I'm not presenting black or white scenario or presuming that one thing leads to another. If anything I'm doing the complete opposite. I'm saying rings should not factor. In fact, if you want to apply those fallacies to my argument, then they can be applied to your own. We're not discussing only people who have 5 rings, as only two players in history have that many as a player. Brady and Charles Haley. I'm stating that the idea of even a single championship should not have any factor to a players greatness. In the precedents that players like Dan Marino that don't have any, and players like dilfer, and even Bradshaw do. When you look at Bradshaw numbers, he was below average. But he has 4 rings. Do we really rank him higher than Marino because the rings are a factor. No, we make excuses about Bradshaw defense and him being a game manager at best. So we end up picking and choosing when rings are a factor. You must apply your argument equally across the board. This cannot be done with championships.
  12. Ah, this is where I disagree. I believe it to be an irrelevant factor to a person's greatness. Based the precedents of great players never getting one, and terrible players getting them.
  13. I completely agree, but most people seem to point to rings a their justification.
  14. That's why I think that a championship, from the most team oriented sport in professional sports, cannot be used to justify greatness. Are we really putting Trent dilfer and Joe Flacco over Dan Marino? Smh
  15. So Dan Marino is trash?

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.