oftt4 Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='733481' date='Dec 18 2008, 09:14 AM']hit a nerve did i?[/quote] Not at all. I dont care about the pro bowl. Not even a little bit. If it makes you feel better to think it bothers me, feel free. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it is. Brett Favre making the pro bowl this year is just retarded. So is Phillip Rivers not making it. The AP All-pro team is the true "all-star" team in the NFL. The ProBowl is a popularity contest. That said, Ben didnt deserve to go. I dont have a problem with that. You guys are the ones who make such a big deal about the pro bowl (since the Pro Bowl MVP is Palmer's one and only "accomplishment"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 [quote name='oftt4' post='733489' date='Dec 18 2008, 09:42 AM']Not at all. I dont care about the pro bowl. Not even a little bit. If it makes you feel better to think it bothers me, feel free. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it is. Brett Favre making the pro bowl this year is just retarded. So is Phillip Rivers not making it. The AP All-pro team is the true "all-star" team in the NFL. The ProBowl is a popularity contest. That said, Ben didnt deserve to go. I dont have a problem with that. You guys are the ones who make such a big deal about the pro bowl (since the Pro Bowl MVP is Palmer's one and only "accomplishment").[/quote] Still bitter about not making prom king huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 What the hell are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 [quote name='oftt4' post='733548' date='Dec 18 2008, 02:36 PM']What the hell are you talking about?[/quote] you were just going on about how the probowl is a popularity contest, and i had to laugh because it remided me of people saying the same thing about prom queen/king in high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishBengalFan Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 48 - Ben Roethlisberger (2004-2008) 48 - Otto Graham (1950-54) 48 - Dan Marino (1983 - 1987) 48 - Tom Brady (2000-2004) 46 - John Elway (1983-1987) Hate to break this to you, but Graham got his 48 when they only played 12 games per year, and had an 0.800 winning percentage (48-12) vs. Roethlisberger's 0.600 (48-32) . If you want to compare apples to apples. 64 - Otto Graham (1950-54) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 [quote name='AmishBengalFan' post='733563' date='Dec 18 2008, 04:01 PM']48 - Ben Roethlisberger (2004-2008) 48 - Otto Graham (1950-54) 48 - Dan Marino (1983 - 1987) 48 - Tom Brady (2000-2004) 46 - John Elway (1983-1987) Hate to break this to you, but Graham got his 48 when they only played 12 games per year, and had an 0.800 winning percentage (48-12) vs. Roethlisberger's 0.600 (48-32) . If you want to compare apples to apples. 64 - Otto Graham (1950-54)[/quote] post more around these parts Amish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 [quote name='AmishBengalFan' post='733563' date='Dec 18 2008, 04:01 PM']48 - Ben Roethlisberger (2004-2008) 48 - Otto Graham (1950-54) 48 - Dan Marino (1983 - 1987) 48 - Tom Brady (2000-2004) 46 - John Elway (1983-1987) Hate to break this to you, but Graham got his 48 when they only played 12 games per year, and had an 0.800 winning percentage (48-12) vs. Roethlisberger's 0.600 (48-32) . If you want to compare apples to apples. 64 - Otto Graham (1950-54)[/quote] And I don't think Graham sucked on his thumb or grabbed his shoulder every time he fucked up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bammorrisgotmehigh Posted December 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 [quote name='Elflocko' post='733566' date='Dec 18 2008, 05:04 PM']And I don't think Graham sucked on his thumb or grabbed his shoulder every time he fucked up...[/quote] As long as he has been a part of guaranteeing my team at least the 2nd seed in this years playoff and have a good shot at his second ring. Swept the Bengals 3 times. Hold all sorts of rookie QB records. Navigated the hardest NFL schedule in 30 years to a playoff berth. Won a Super Bowl. Have a legendary play named after him. Have the record for most wins by a QB in first 5 years. On and On and On. Do all that in his first 5 years and still have another 9 years or so left, he can be the biggest drama queen in the history of the world and I won't give a fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 [quote name='AmishBengalFan' post='733563' date='Dec 18 2008, 04:01 PM']48 - Ben Roethlisberger (2004-2008) 48 - Otto Graham (1950-54) 48 - Dan Marino (1983 - 1987) 48 - Tom Brady (2000-2004) 46 - John Elway (1983-1987) Hate to break this to you, but Graham got his 48 when they only played 12 games per year, and had an 0.800 winning percentage (48-12) vs. Roethlisberger's 0.600 (48-32) . If you want to compare apples to apples. 64 - Otto Graham (1950-54)[/quote] He is a special case. Otto Graham started playing for the Browns in 1946 (in the AAFL, the Browns joined the NFL in 1950). So 1950 through 1954 wouldnt be his first five years, would they? Graham's accomplishments are incredible, but he played professional football for four years before this list started counting games, so it isnt really comparing apples to apples as you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankie martin Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 [quote name='Elflocko' post='733566' date='Dec 18 2008, 04:04 PM']And I don't think Graham sucked on his thumb or grabbed his shoulder every time he fucked up...[/quote] Who cares?? Long as Ben keeps winning games, he can hold his shoulder after every play for all i care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 Can we change the subject yet? Let's talk about the Ravens not making the playoffs now that the Colts already wrapped up the wildcard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTBengalsFan Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 [quote name='bammorrisgotmehigh' post='728987' date='Dec 1 2008, 03:59 PM'][img]http://www.corporate-aliens.com/quotes/scarlettohara.jpg[/img] [b]"As God is my witness, as God is my witness I will never give him any credit!!!They're not going to lick me! I'm going to live through this and when it's all over, He will have no credit! No, nor any of his folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill! As God is my witness, I will never give him any credit, he will always be a game manager!!!!"[/b][/quote] TBH, I have to agree with him. The quest to discredit Ben from anything is childish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 [quote name='Bunghole' post='733848' date='Dec 20 2008, 03:44 PM']Can we change the subject yet? Let's talk about the Ravens not making the playoffs now that the Colts already wrapped up the wildcard![/quote] Well...it looks like it is their spot to lose (the #6 seed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishBengalFan Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 [quote name='oftt4' post='733831' date='Dec 20 2008, 12:49 PM']He is a special case. Otto Graham started playing for the Browns in 1946 (in the AAFL, the Browns joined the NFL in 1950). So 1950 through 1954 wouldnt be his first five years, would they? Graham's accomplishments are incredible, but he played professional football for four years before this list started counting games, so it isnt really comparing apples to apples as you say.[/quote] The OP shows Grahams first 5 years as 1950-54, as does the NFL. If you have better info, I recommend that you call Joe Horrigan at the HoF: (330) 456-8207. Failing that, it is my opinion that discrediting Graham's superior numbers to elevate Roethlisberger's is selectively ignoring one fact to support an inferior second fact. The two sets of numbers are in the same NFL-defined context - denying one denies both. Roethlisberger (48-32) has as many wins, and 20 more losses, than Graham (48-12) over the same period. It's an elite group he's in, even if his numbers are padded due to having played 20 more games than Graham. Be happy with that, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bammorrisgotmehigh Posted May 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 [quote name='AmishBengalFan' post='773670' date='May 5 2009, 08:45 PM']The OP shows Grahams first 5 years as 1950-54, as does the NFL. If you have better info, I recommend that you call Joe Horrigan at the HoF: (330) 456-8207. Failing that, it is my opinion that discrediting Graham's superior numbers to elevate Roethlisberger's is selectively ignoring one fact to support an inferior second fact. The two sets of numbers are in the same NFL-defined context - denying one denies both. [b]Roethlisberger (48-32) has as many wins, and 20 more losses, than Graham (48-12) over the same period. [/b] It's an elite group he's in, even if his numbers are padded due to having played 20 more games than Graham. Be happy with that, man.[/quote] Totally incorrect 22 losses including playoffs 2004 13-0 as starter in regular season 1-1 in playoffs 2005 9-3 as starter in regular season 4-0 in playoffs 2006 7-8 as starter in regular season 2007 10-5 as starter in regular season 0-1 in playoffs 2008 12-4 as starter in regular season 3-0 in playoffs and he won the last Super Bowl on the almighty 30th attempt [img]http://silentarchimedes.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/holmes.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.steelersonly.com/images/ben_roethlisberger_super_bowl.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 [quote name='AmishBengalFan' post='773670' date='May 5 2009, 08:45 PM']The OP shows Grahams first 5 years as 1950-54, as does the NFL. If you have better info, I recommend that you call Joe Horrigan at the HoF: (330) 456-8207. Failing that, it is my opinion that discrediting Graham's superior numbers to elevate Roethlisberger's is selectively ignoring one fact to support an inferior second fact. The two sets of numbers are in the same NFL-defined context - denying one denies both. Roethlisberger (48-32) has as many wins, and 20 more losses, than Graham (48-12) over the same period. It's an elite group he's in, even if his numbers are padded due to having played 20 more games than Graham. Be happy with that, man.[/quote] As Bam has already pointed out you are, once again, wrong. (Here is some advice, when trying to make yourself sound smart...you should make an attempt to get your facts right). Using only regular season starts, Ben is 51-20 as a starter. Including playoff games, Ben is 59-22 as a starter. Otto Graham was 48-11 in his first 5 years as a starter. Including playoff games, Otto was 51-14 as a starter. Of course this doesnt take into account my original point that these numbers ignore his first 4 years as a Cleveland Brown. There is one thing you are right about though. Ben's numbers are impressive, even more so when you take away the imaginary losses that you put in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jh0720 Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 i dont think big ben had a broken thumb.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.