Quarterback Greatness

This plays into my theory on Sol's GOAT theory (a previous post).

A QB plays in the NFL regular season. He sucks ass and loses the starting job. The team rolls thru the season with their backup. They end up in the SB. The original QB (SucksAss) who was the starter gets called on to play in the big game. QB-SucksAss wins the SB. It happens again... let's say 8 more times in a row. QB SucksAss now has 8 SB wins and ZERO losses. But he can't hold the starting job during a season or the playoffs. In this exercise, QB SucksAss is now the GOAT. True or False? If false, why?

 

Ah...the old "you're a fan of this team so therefore your opinion doesn't count" card. Nicely done. I'm sure there was a time that this worked on message boards but just like the ole "you live in your parents basement" insult....those times are over.

You already admitted you were wrong. I gave you permission to carry on. You can choose to further embarrass yourself...but I don't recommend it.

Your logic is flawed and dumb. Case closed.

 

Again, I already refuted this because as I said before, ad naseum, IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE HARDWARE. It's also about perception, by your own admission in your scenario, he is percieved as "suckass" and while eligible to be considered, wouldn't be.

 

No, wrong card. The card that was played was, because you don't understand "greatness", God/Fate has punished you by making you a fan of a team that never had a QB who was one of the best or greatest.

No, I admitted you don't understand, and your confusion in understanding English is sad. But I do enjoy you making a fool of yourself by being unable to understand.

 

Okay here's a hypothetical...

QB A....plays 15 years. He makes the Superbowl twice and wins both times.

QB B...also plays 15 years. He makes the Superbowl 6 times. Wins 3, loses 3.

QB A is greater even though QB B went further than him 4 times?

Losing in the SB is better than losing in an earlier round or not making the playoffs at all, no?

 

It really doesn't matter what card you attempted to play because you failed before you started typing. There is no god...there is no fate. There's only right (me) and wrong (you).

Being born in Pittsburgh doesn't make you a better fan than me because I was born in Chicago. Nor does it mean you suddenly know more about football or get to be the end all be all decider of greatness.

You don't define greatness. You simply have an ass backwards opinion of what it is.

K.

 

This is not true, perhaps your memory is deceiving you. Maybe we should bring this back to the NHL boards where we discuss this matter further.

 

Losses (the opposite of HARDWARE)

Losses (the opposite of HARDWARE)

Losses (opposite of HARDWARE)

While talking about Alexander as a "world conqueror" it is easy to miss the relatively cupcake path he took to get there. Alexander's success was primarily against the Achaemenid Empire that was already imploding by the time Alexander arrived. The Emperor Darius III had very little battle experience and was placed there as a puppet ruler by the vizier Bagoas. After the Battle of Hydaspes, Alex's army was fatigued with battle and longed to return home. Basically, Alexander was forced to retreat towards Babylon... by his own men's reluctance to carry on fighting, thus ending Alexander's quest to conquer India. According to some historians, the Macedonians were not looking forward to engaging in more battles with armies led by soldiers mounted on elephants.

Anyway, by the quotes above (sans the history lesson), LOSSES seems to be an immediate disqualification. If you didn't lose, you won ... or tied, which keeps you in the conversation for GOAT. But we all know that there are no ties in the Super Bowl. So, logically, HARDWARE comes into play (see above). 61 QBs in 52 SBs. Some with two wins (ONE-HIT WONDERS.. DQ'd), a few with more. Since a loss is a DQ, it is PERCEIVED that hardware (WINNING) is the ultimate qualifier (UQ). Push this UQ into a hypothetical, and my QB SucksAss (the 8-time SB winner<WITH ZERO LOSSES> - hypothetically) is the GOAT. My personal opinion <he suxazz> would hold no weight.

Therefore, using the Solomon GOAT theory and its qualifiers listed/utilized from our discussions, QB SucksAss is the GOAT NFL quarterback. Prove me wrong.

 

Still, Alexander didn't lose, that's why we call him Alexander the Great, but just as I already proved you wrong, you once again leave perception out of the equation. If in addition to the hardware, the sentiment is he is the Greatest, then he is, if tho, he is considered "suckas" as you say, he is not.

 

Oh no. I've got perception down to the science of it all. QB SucksAss is the GOAT.

 

This. ^ is of course the dumbest post on the thread. The only failure is in being a Bears fan, admittedly any time I type "Bears" it brings down the quality of the post, the thread and the board, much in the way having diarrhea and anal leprosy would bring down your day.

And while it's true "I don't define greatness" greatness in an NFL QB IS defined by winning multiple times on the biggest stage and not losing, and public perception, apparently things which are beyond you.

 

How would that QB be percieved as great if he is perceived as being "suckas"???

 

He meets all the criteria, especially PERCEPTION.

 

By your own adjective "suckass" he does not.

Besides, being hypothetical, it's really unknown how people would feel about him.

 

Its not an adjective. Its his name. Deal with it.

 

You touching yourself caused the Pens to lose, deal with it.

Seriously tho, if that is his name, besides being a Bears fan, you have not addressed the perception of him at all.

 

Your butt still hurts from that time you tried to come to the Bears board being a jack ass and got sent away whining and crying? That was a while ago bud....you gotta learn to let stuff go.

And again...greatness isn’t something you define. Losing in the SB isn’t something that automatically takes away greatness. You can lose on the biggest stage and still be great. You can also win on the biggest stage and not be great.

This subject, like most things, isn’t black or white. And the rigid rule you’ve attempted to put down is flawed. And dumb.

 

And now this is where Sol comes and says he never said that is the case, he's only defining #1 and no one else.

Still don't agree with him.

 

I don’t agree with Sol here but it’s a fun ride this thread, gets a conversation going anyway.

 

The perception is all about depth.