Bye Week, Onto Oakland

[Brown Warrior]

Originally Posted by Inspecta

I should hope that made you puke, cause my McDonalds biscuit just tried to come back up after I read that post...

Funny. How's the standup going? When are you gonna need our guest room?

[Inspecta]

The standup is going great, I actually got to open for Carl Labove this past weekend. He used to tour with Sam Kinison, and Bill Hicks. Two legends of comedy, and he's a legend in his own right (in the comedy world). I perform anywhere between 3-5 times a week, so I'm getting timing down, crowd work. All that stuff, and I'm having a ball doing it.

Keep the guest room open, never know when I'll get signed to a 36 week tour!

How's your pilot coming along?

[Brown Warrior]

Originally Posted by Inspecta

The standup is going great, I actually got to open for Carl Labove this past weekend. He used to tour with Sam Kinison, and Bill Hicks. Two legends of comedy, and he's a legend in his own right (in the comedy world). I perform anywhere between 3-5 times a week, so I'm getting timing down, crowd work. All that stuff, and I'm having a ball doing it.

Keep the guest room open, never know when I'll get signed to a 36 week tour!

How's your pilot coming along?

Really well. Pilot commitment kicks in when we sign our female lead which is imminent and soon... then we go to work. Very exciting.

Great news about the career. Balls like grapefruits, man. Go get'em.

[Greythan]

Gone a few days and had to (I have a sickness) comb through the thread from my last post.

Ironically, Shep continued to cite Peyton Manning's SB victory as an example of a QB driven win even though a) Manning's numbers sucked hard in the playoffs and b) the Colt's defense was a huge difference maker.

Then, in an ironic irony to end all ironies, he accused his debate partners of not conceding the argument.

Priceless.

[Brown Warrior]

Or we could just start up again...

No irony whatsoever... just the usual ships passing in the night as far as points, both made and none refuted.

To the statement that you need a great quarterback but he'll only win if he has a top 10 defense, I gave NUMEROUS examples refuting that. When one says "top 10 defense," they usually mean their ranking during the season or even over a number of seasons... and the Colts defense was bad for a substantial run of playoff years (but built to get after the passer when Manning stakes them to a big lead).

Hence, Manning won (as in, playoffs every year, two Super Bowls, one win) without a great ("top 10") defense. Same is true of Warner, Brees, and this year Rodgers AND Brady (#1 and #2 in ESPN Power Poll).

I acknowledge and agree that teams that are weak in one area or another... and then make a successful playoff run... tend to fill in that hole in order to do so. Sometimes it's defense, other times it's James Starks, yet other times it's Eli or Sanchez.

I also acknowledge that either scoring more points than anybody else OR giving up fewer than anybody else is almost mathematically certain to lead to a lot of wins. Bronx showed how over the past five years, either would do just fine. Right now, more big scoring teams are winning than big stop-them-from-scoring teams... but again, logic dictates in a game decided by points that either would yield positive results.

Phew. I know you want someone to seem wrong here, but I think you're out of avenues, my friend. Tagging with "priceless" won't cut it.

Originally Posted by Greythan

Gone a few days and had to (I have a sickness) comb through the thread from my last post.

Ironically, Shep continued to cite Peyton Manning's SB victory as an example of a QB driven win even though a) Manning's numbers sucked hard in the playoffs and b) the Colt's defense was a huge difference maker.

Then, in an ironic irony to end all ironies, he accused his debate partners of not conceding the argument.

Priceless.

[Greythan]

Fair enough. Got me on a technicality regarding the top 10 defense "defense".

See? Its easy to concede when you're wrong.

Point still stands, however, that you can't use Peyton's Super Bowl year as an example of how an elite QB can win you a championship. I guess that's the point you never acknowledged in our, specific debate.

[Brown Warrior]

Okay, we're closer (!). But I don't really think I have to concede that point, because winning a championship takes 19 or 20 games, not 2 or 3. And do you NOT think the #1 passer in the NFL was the main reason the Colts won 12 games, got into the tournament, etc.?

He had a pretty good Super Bowl, but I'll admit I didn't realize his numbers were so lame in the playoffs.

[Greythan]

He led an important drive in that Super Bowl, but go back in this thread and read KoK's rather well done synopsis of their playoff run that year. Remember, Peyton posted a 2/7 TD/INT ratio in those playoffs with a 70 ish passer rating (the actual numbers are in this thread). The Colts' defense held their first 2 rounds of opponents to 8 and 6 points as well.

Point being that as epic and stable as Manning was in Indy, the one year they won was when their defense went on a playoff tear. This supports the "best team" wins argument over the best QB argument as Peyton should have multiple SB's if it was about the QB.

[Greythan]

And, I don't think it takes 18-19 games. It takes getting into the playoffs. Just ask the Patriots about their loss to the Giants or any number of wild card/low seed SB winners. Peaking, balance, good QB'ing, scoring defense, winning the turnover battle seem to be a good list of how you win ONCE you get into the playoffs.

[Brown Warrior]

Originally Posted by Greythan

And, I don't think it takes 18-19 games. It takes getting into the playoffs. Just ask the Patriots about their loss to the Giants or any number of wild card/low seed SB winners. Peaking, balance, good QB'ing, scoring defense, winning the turnover battle seem to be a good list of how you win ONCE you get into the playoffs.

That was my point, actually: You can't win the Super Bowl without getting into the playoffs... and Peyton Manning put the Colts there year after year after year.

Subtract him... and they're 0-5 and will NOT have a spot in the tourney. Over 16 games, you either have a great quarterback or you don't and it seems to be the clearest commonality of winning teams in the league.

In the playoffs, almost everybody has a great quarterback because there's so much correlation between the QBR leaders and the playoff teams.

[Greythan]

I'll drop it. I know you'll never concede an inch of ground. And, I'm too damn tired to research the litany of balanced teams that make the playoffs every year without an epic QB carrying them during the regular season. Or, the contrary, point out teams like San Diego who don't even make the playoffs while earlier in the very same year many "pundits" were putting Rivers in the top 2 or 3 of NFL quarterbacks.

[Brown Warrior]

Last year it was Sanchez... as far as "mediocre QBs." Just about everybody else could be overlaid with the QBR rankings. That's been true for several years now.

Agreed, we can quit. We're not that far apart anyway.