PDA

View Full Version : Kurt Warner = True GOAT



Tdog1
12-14-2010, 08:25 AM
Everybody says post season is the only thing that truly matters well;

Kurts post season stats:
~QB rating: 102.8
~TD:Int = 31:14

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae150/Vjenneboer/mk9j87jpg.gif

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 08:29 AM
You're breaking all the rules. Never ever disagree with following order below

Montana > Brady > everybody else

This is double blasphemy as you're disagreeing with Kethnaab. You will now be deemed a terrible poster.

thegenerel
12-14-2010, 08:32 AM
You're breaking all the rules. Never ever disagree with following order below

Montana > Brady > everybody else

This is double blasphemy as you're disagreeing with Kethnaab. You will now be deemed a terrible poster.

you were cemented in the halls of terrible posting a long time ago.

AJbuilder
12-14-2010, 08:33 AM
Yep.

eyerate
12-14-2010, 08:42 AM
Inb4 Tommy 3-rings nuthug negtrain

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 08:42 AM
you were cemented in the halls of terrible posting a long time ago.

NOOOOOOOO please anything but being considered a terrible poster on the bb.com sport section.

thegenerel
12-14-2010, 09:12 AM
NOOOOOOOO please anything but being considered a terrible poster on the bb.com sport section.

i am confident that you have plenty other shortcomings.

charity4thepoor
12-14-2010, 09:53 AM
kurt will forever be the man

kethnaab
12-14-2010, 11:18 AM
You're breaking all the rules. Never ever disagree with following order below

Montana > Brady > everybody else

This is double blasphemy as you're disagreeing with Kethnaab. You will now be deemed a terrible poster.

yet another example that you really have no clue. you think it's about people and players. I give a **** who is who. All I care about is performance, and Warner performed.

Warner was an absolute beast. Not sure how to rank him in history because he was definitely a "fair weather" QB and he was a Terrell Davis type, i.e. bright star, glowed for short time. However, when he got his opportunities, he was insanely effective. Unlike Peypey, Warner TRULY carried a substandard team to the postseason and nearly beat one of the best defenses ever (and darn sure put a whuppin' on them)

Erik2806
12-14-2010, 11:24 AM
idk where he fits all-time, but its definitely easy and safe to say that..

warner > manning

Budly69
12-14-2010, 12:17 PM
idk where he fits all-time, but its definitely easy and safe to say that..

warner > manning

^^this^^

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 06:12 PM
yet another example that you really have no clue. you think it's about people and players. I give a **** who is who. All I care about is performance, and Warner performed.

Warner was an absolute beast. Not sure how to rank him in history because he was definitely a "fair weather" QB and he was a Terrell Davis type, i.e. bright star, glowed for short time. However, when he got his opportunities, he was insanely effective. Unlike Peypey, Warner TRULY carried a substandard team to the postseason and nearly beat one of the best defenses ever (and darn sure put a whuppin' on them)

In another post you said it was all about the rings but Warner only has 1 ring thus he can't be that great. The whole rings argument is stupid as it's the biggest team stat there is out there yet you are trying to judge an individual off of it. Not to mention it creates a bunch of flawed statement for example

Bradshaw > Manning
Dilfer > Marino

It's pointless arguing with you though as you are very selective with what you want to respond to and will never finish a conversation.

CCAurora
12-14-2010, 06:50 PM
Definitely underrated, and I've never been a fan of him.

Montana had a career that was longer, more consistent, and more spectacular... and dem dere Super Bowl stats. 13 TD's, 0 INT's, 4-0 record. Literal perfection.

TexasHeat
12-14-2010, 07:12 PM
Warner is a top 15-Top 20 QB of all time.

He simply did not have long enough of a career, plus he stumbled half way through it (time with Giants)

Hall of Famer for sure though based off his 2 MVP's and playoff numbers.

iamgenus
12-14-2010, 07:35 PM
In another post you said it was all about the rings but Warner only has 1 ring thus he can't be that great. The whole rings argument is stupid as it's the biggest team stat there is out there yet you are trying to judge an individual off of it. Not to mention it creates a bunch of flawed statement for example

Bradshaw > Manning
Dilfer > Marino

It's pointless arguing with you though as you are very selective with what you want to respond to and will never finish a conversation.

Dude you're like the whiniest bitch on these boards lately. How's that denial working out for you?

Oh no the walls of Peyton is the best are crumbling around...quick grab onto every little semantic and ride it like it's a paid off hooker.

It is all about the rings but unless you're f*cking retarded you have to take other things into consideration...Brady isn't just someone who has 3 rings. He's become an elite qb. He already beat Manning's record in 2007. He led his team to a perfect regular season and yes the team choked in the superbowl but Brady did his part.

Brady haters all over are at least just disappearing because you can't honestly try and discredit the guy and compare him to guys like Dilfer and look sane.

Congrats...you're a joke.

kethnaab
12-14-2010, 08:12 PM
In another post you said it was all about the rings

that was in direct comparison of Brady and Montana. Context matters.


but Warner only has 1 ring thus he can't be that great. The whole rings argument is stupid as it's the biggest team stat there is out there yet you are trying to judge an individual off of it. Not to mention it creates a bunch of flawed statement for example

Bradshaw > Manning
Dilfer > Marino

it's part of the equation, a large part of the equation. Statistical accumulation during the regular season has a lot to do with the team's offensive system, the team's defense, the division someone plays in, the type of stadium/dome someone plays in, etc.

However, when OBVIOUS patterns emerge, you have to acknowledge them. Nothing is absolute. The ridiculous straw man argument involving "Dilfer > Marino" is a perfect example.

Postseason performance matters, and context within a game matters. Manning posting 1/3 of his postseason TDs in 3 games (out of 18) grossly skews his postseason performances, but you ignore that.

Manning is the home run hitter who strikes out with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth. His entire career was truly capsulized by the last Super Bowl. massive stat accumulation, but when it counts, he failed and failed miserably, then had the nerve to whine about "protection issues" and he had the nerve to point the finger at Wayne when Manning stared Wayne down from the moment the ball was snapped.

I honestly thought he had finally beat it though, he played extremely well that entire playoffs. I thought he had the monkey off his back. Then....pick 6.


It's pointless arguing with you though as you are very selective with what you want to respond to and will never finish a conversation.

I am like this with you because you give me a headache. Your consistent misinterpretation, interpretation out of context, and just plain lack of understanding about certain things makes me wonder if you are serious or trolling.

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 08:58 PM
Dude you're like the whiniest bitch on these boards lately. How's that denial working out for you?

Oh no the walls of Peyton is the best are crumbling around...quick grab onto every little semantic and ride it like it's a paid off hooker.

It is all about the rings but unless you're f*cking retarded you have to take other things into consideration...Brady isn't just someone who has 3 rings. He's become an elite qb. He already beat Manning's record in 2007. He led his team to a perfect regular season and yes the team choked in the superbowl but Brady did his part.

Brady haters all over are at least just disappearing because you can't honestly try and discredit the guy and compare him to guys like Dilfer and look sane.

Congrats...you're a joke.

Glad we could at least keep childish name calling out of the discussion and have an adult conversation :rolleyes:

Yes Brady is certainly an elite QB, as is Manning. Yes he beat Manning's record in 2007 too bad it took 70+ more attempts to do it. Go look at the #'s Manning's 2004 season > Brady's 2007 season. Perfect regular season that's great probably something the Colts probably would have done 2 years later as well if not for benching Manning.

Who is trying to compare Brady to Dilfer?

You are just notorious for putting words into people's mouth. Read what I said instead of making things up.

Budly69
12-14-2010, 09:00 PM
Glad we could at least keep childish name calling out of the discussion and have an adult conversation :rolleyes:

Yes Brady is certainly an elite QB, as is Manning. Yes he beat Manning's record in 2007 too bad it took 70+ more attempts to do it. Go look at the #'s Manning's 2004 season > Brady's 2007 season. Perfect regular season that's great probably something the Colts probably would have done 2 years later as well if not for benching Manning.

Who is trying to compare Brady to Dilfer?

You are just notorious for putting words into people's mouth. Read what I said instead of making things up.

Read post 16 and STFU then GTFO then hang yourself.

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 09:11 PM
it's part of the equation, a large part of the equation. Statistical accumulation during the regular season has a lot to do with the team's offensive system, the team's defense, the division someone plays in, the type of stadium/dome someone plays in, etc.

However, when OBVIOUS patterns emerge, you have to acknowledge them. Nothing is absolute. The ridiculous straw man argument involving "Dilfer > Marino" is a perfect example.

Postseason performance matters, and context within a game matters. Manning posting 1/3 of his postseason TDs in 3 games (out of 18) grossly skews his postseason performances, but you ignore that.

Manning is the home run hitter who strikes out with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth. His entire career was truly capsulized by the last Super Bowl. massive stat accumulation, but when it counts, he failed and failed miserably, then had the nerve to whine about "protection issues" and he had the nerve to point the finger at Wayne when Manning stared Wayne down from the moment the ball was snapped.

I honestly thought he had finally beat it though, he played extremely well that entire playoffs. I thought he had the monkey off his back. Then....pick 6.

I'm sure we could sit here and go back and forth all day long naming off stats to make our cases for each person. In the end it ultimately comes down to you put a much higher price tag on rings than I do and I put a much higher price tag on player stats than you do.

In regards to Manning's stats being skewed because he had 3 great games so what? What should we just not include those games because he played great? Now if you want to say well based on the stats it seems Brady is more consistent than Manning in the post season I would fully agree with that but you act as if we should just not include those games that Manning played great because he played great.

My problem is that you can not admit that if not for Brady's defense he wouldn't have 2 of those rings. Unless you think most QB's are getting a ring when they post consecutive sub 80 QB rating games in the post season. I challenge you to find anybody in the past 15 years (besides Manning) who in a post season has posted two games with a sub 80 QB rating who won the super bowl that year. Trent Dilfer didn't do it in his super bowl year nor did Brad Johnson in his. Though he did have two sub 80 QB rating games that post season just not consecutive. Though those two QB's are pretty much the prime example of QB's who rode a defense to a SB. Once Brady got to the SB he did great but without superb defensive play he's probably not even there.

Interested to see articles about Manning saying they had protection problems after that SB and also him blaming Wayne for that play.



I am like this with you because you give me a headache. Your consistent misinterpretation, interpretation out of context, and just plain lack of understanding about certain things makes me wonder if you are serious or trolling.

Unless you provide some examples I can't help you. All I know is you pick and choose what you want to respond to and I don't know if I've ever seen you admit you were wrong.

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 09:12 PM
Read post 16 and STFU then GTFO then hang yourself.

ROFL!!!

youmad.jpg

thegenerel
12-14-2010, 09:30 PM
I am like this with you because you give me a headache. Your consistent misinterpretation, interpretation out of context, and just plain lack of understanding about certain things makes me wonder if you are serious or trolling.

he is the equivalent of that light game where you press one lit button to turn it off and four others pop up around it. he makes some stupid statement, another person gives a solid response, and jimmy clausen moves onto an entirely different stance.

thegenerel
12-14-2010, 09:34 PM
I am like this with you because you give me a headache. Your consistent misinterpretation, interpretation out of context, and just plain lack of understanding about certain things makes me wonder if you are serious or trolling.



Unless you provide some examples I can't help you. All I know is you pick and choose what you want to respond to and I don't know if I've ever seen you admit you were wrong.

keth, you need to provide examples to back up your opinion.

im satisfied with the overwhelming evidence that you pick and choose what to respond to and that you never admit being wrong.

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 09:34 PM
he is the equivalent of that light game where you press one lit button to turn it off and four others pop up around it. he makes some stupid statement, another person gives a solid response, and jimmy clausen moves onto an entirely different stance.

Shouldn't you be off selling some car insurance or something?

kethnaab
12-14-2010, 10:16 PM
In the end it ultimately comes down to you put a much higher price tag on rings than I do and I put a much higher price tag on player stats than you do.

that's a reasonable assessment


In regards to Manning's stats being skewed because he had 3 great games so what?

they are statistical abberations. You have, on several occasions, quoted Manning's postseason passer rating which is, what, 2 points higher? Can't remember, too lazy to look it up. 3 games out of 18 caused Manning's postseason passer rating to increase nearly 10 points. Those other 15 weren't so good though. Statistics are useful, but you have to take them in context.


My problem is that you can not admit that if not for Brady's defense he wouldn't have 2 of those rings.

I've never denied that the Patriots had solid defenses. You simply don't get multiple Super Bowls without good defensive play, period. My issue is that Brady came through when he needed to.


Unless you think most QB's are getting a ring when they post consecutive sub 80 QB rating games in the post season. I challenge you to find anybody in the past 15 years (besides Manning) who in a post season has posted two games with a sub 80 QB rating who won the super bowl that year.Trent Dilfer didn't do it in his super bowl year nor did Brad Johnson in his. Though he did have two sub 80 QB rating games that post season just not consecutive.

not sure if "consecutive" matters or not, not trying to be coy. I do find it ironic that Manning and Brady did manage to play some average to downright bad games and still make it to the Super Bowl. However, Brady obviously made up for it with an insanely dominant performance vs. Carolina on a day when his defense downright failed him



Interested to see articles about Manning saying they had protection problems after that SB and also him blaming Wayne for that play.

he was quoted after the game as mentioning "protection problems" (or perhaps "issues"). The talk afterward was also that Wayne was supposed to break his route off, although he wasn't quoted directly, he made reference to it in an interview with some local newscaster. I think it was youtubed, but I'm not going to kid you, I can't remember


Unless you provide some examples I can't help you.

"taking comments out of context"

Someone made mention of me saying Montana was the best, but with Brady's play, I may have changed my mind. I responded by saying something like "it's all about the Super Bowl" or "all about the rings" or whatever. It was NOT a generalized statement, it was specific. You quoted me as saying something like the only thing that matters is the rings. Obviously a quote taken out of context.

"lack of understanding" = the passer rating confusion both regarding "take the average of 3 games" and Brady having a higher passer rating than Manning inside a Dome and outside a Dome but you not understanding how that is possible.

"Misunderstanding/misrepresenting" = in a discussion about Brady and Manning, you used one of the worst postseason games by Peyton Manning in his career as an example of why Brady wasn't doing that well, i.e. "Manning is better than Brady, and to prove it, look how bad Brady did when Manning threw 4 picks, Brady should've put more points on the board".

Your criticism of Indy's postseason defense especially during games when Manning threw several picks. You stated something to the effect that, "if it wasn't returned for a TD, then the score is on the defense". Perhaps Indy's defense wasn't so bad, ESPECIALLY since they managed to keep Brady and the Pats to 24 despite Manning turning the ball over.

These are some recent examples off the top of my head.


I don't know if I've ever seen you admit you were wrong.

I've admitted it several times, most recently involving Denver draft picks, Michael Vick, and then something else more recent that slips my mind. I also admitted I was wrong about Lawrence Timmons, Arian Foster, Kyle Orton, Mike Singletary.

If I'm wrong, I admit it.

kethnaab
12-14-2010, 10:24 PM
jesus christ that was a serious wall of text.

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 10:43 PM
they are statistical abberations. You have, on several occasions, quoted Manning's postseason passer rating which is, what, 2 points higher? Can't remember, too lazy to look it up. 3 games out of 18 caused Manning's postseason passer rating to increase nearly 10 points. Those other 15 weren't so good though. Statistics are useful, but you have to take them in context.

Yes it's about 2 points higher. As I pointed out before if somebody comes in and say Brady is much more consistent in the playoff's just look at the passer ratings I would agree but overall Manning has a higher QB rating. I certainly wouldn't fault somebody for saying they prefer the more consistent QB in the post season. Though I will never agree with somebody implying since they were statistical aberrations as you put it that it should not count for them. As much as it pains me to say your analogy from before about him being a home run hitter who strikes out in the ninth probably isn't too far off base but at the same time you can't just not include those times he does hit the home runs.



I've never denied that the Patriots had solid defenses. You simply don't get multiple Super Bowls without good defensive play, period. My issue is that Brady came through when he needed to.

He did come through when they needed him to, certainly no argument on my part about that. I guess just agree to disagree here but I put a lot more emphasis on who plays well throughout the whole game rather than just who plays well the last 2 minutes of the game. You don't play well throughout the game, then the last two minutes don't matter. Again this can be applied to Brady's second post season. He played great in the super bowl but if not for his defense carrying him through those first two games he most likely isn't even in the super bowl. So call me crazy if you like but I give most of the credit to the part of team that won 2 of the 3 games rather than the one that won 1 of the 3 games.


not sure if "consecutive" matters or not, not trying to be coy. I do find it ironic that Manning and Brady did manage to play some average to downright bad games and still make it to the Super Bowl. However, Brady obviously made up for it with an insanely dominant performance vs. Carolina on a day when his defense downright failed him

I'd be kind of surprised even if you could find non consecutive games where a QB won the super bowl with 2 out 3 or 3 out of 4 sub 80 QB rating games. Obviously with the exception of Brad Johnson as I already pointed him out and like said he's a prime example of somebody riding their defense. He most certainly did play a very good SB that year and his defense certainly did not.



he was quoted after the game as mentioning "protection problems" (or perhaps "issues"). The talk afterward was also that Wayne was supposed to break his route off, although he wasn't quoted directly, he made reference to it in an interview with some local newscaster. I think it was youtubed, but I'm not going to kid you, I can't remember

Hmmm I'll have to look around see if I can find this. I know awhile back he criticized his o-line for protection problems but the time I'm thinking of was well before this last SB.




"taking comments out of context"

Someone made mention of me saying Montana was the best, but with Brady's play, I may have changed my mind. I responded by saying something like "it's all about the Super Bowl" or "all about the rings" or whatever. It was NOT a generalized statement, it was specific. You quoted me as saying something like the only thing that matters is the rings. Obviously a quote taken out of context.

Fair enough I most certainly did take that out of context.


"lack of understanding" = the passer rating confusion both regarding "take the average of 3 games" and Brady having a higher passer rating than Manning inside a Dome and outside a Dome but you not understanding how that is possible.

Again I will concede that was certainly a lack of understanding though I don't believe in either case did it make a significant difference on my point I was trying to make. Brady's QB rating were still average at best and I didn't even bring up the inside and outside dome thing and I didn't claim Manning played better than Brady in any of those situations so my misunderstanding really had little impact on either conversation.


"Misunderstanding/misrepresenting" = in a discussion about Brady and Manning, you used one of the worst postseason games by Peyton Manning in his career as an example of why Brady wasn't doing that well, i.e. "Manning is better than Brady, and to prove it, look how bad Brady did when Manning threw 4 picks, Brady should've put more points on the board".

Your criticism of Indy's postseason defense especially during games when Manning threw several picks. You stated something to the effect that, "if it wasn't returned for a TD, then the score is on the defense". Perhaps Indy's defense wasn't so bad, ESPECIALLY since they managed to keep Brady and the Pats to 24 despite Manning turning the ball over.

These are some recent examples off the top of my head.

I remember what discussion you are talking about here but if I remember correctly that wasn't even the original point i was trying to make. I believe my original point was just to say that Brady did not have a good game and then you said something about it was better than Manning's he had 4 INT's, and then I said well that made Brady look even worse then because he was presented with more opportunities then to score and put up better stats than he should have. So can't say I agree with you here. I still stand by that statement that if QB A throws 4 INT's that QB B has a much better chance of putting up better stats than if those 4 INT's weren't there.

Correct if it was not returned for a TD then technically the score falls on the defense. Of course a lot of times when QB's throw INT's it certainly puts the defense at a disadvantage. Which helps with my point above with Manning throwing 4 INT's and thus that should have given Brady a much better chance to put up better stats as a lot of times INT's put your defense in a bad spot and the offense in a very good spot. The key word up there being perhaps. Without doing some real real in depth look at those games all you really have to go by is what you see in the box score. I don't know about you but I can't recall every single play that has happened in every single Colts/Pats post season game so most of the time I just go off what I see in the box score as that generally tells a pretty good story of what happened. Not saying it's the be all end all just generally a very good summary.



I've admitted it several times, most recently involving Denver draft picks, Michael Vick, and then something else more recent that slips my mind. I also admitted I was wrong about Lawrence Timmons, Arian Foster, Kyle Orton, Mike Singletary.

If I'm wrong, I admit it.

I'll take your word for it.

Tdog1
12-14-2010, 10:52 PM
I also admitted I was wrong Mike Singletary.

If I'm wrong, I admit it.

I hope you though he was good and now realise he is ****.

Otherwise.................lulz

kethnaab
12-14-2010, 11:01 PM
I hope you though he was good and now realise he is ****.



yup.

really seemed like he turned the 49ers around. Oops!

JTrain306
12-14-2010, 11:05 PM
Of course this would turn into a Manning thread. I don't know why people even give Stanning attention anymore.

RedT90Tank
12-14-2010, 11:09 PM
Let me start this off by saying I like Kurt Warner. I loved how he redeemed himself after being beaten out of his job by Marc Bulger, I liked how he completely turned his career around by how he's played the last few seasons.. but let's be real.. he ain't even near GOAT status.

He did great with the Rams and he did great with the Cardinals.. you know what both those teams have in common? two of the best recievers in the league at the time. With Bruce and Holt in St.Louis and Boldin and Fitzgerald in Arizona. Without great receivers he's average.. case and point.. New York Giants. Yea sure, recievers don't throw the balls to themselves but it's a striking pattern that I thought i had to point out.

He's a great player, no doubt. But he's not a GOAT in my opinion.

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 11:10 PM
Of course this would turn into a Manning thread. I don't know why people even give Stanning attention anymore.

Of course you would be in here to stalk me and make posts about me.

Tdog1
12-14-2010, 11:30 PM
Its a shame this thread has once again shifted to a Brady/Manning debate;

http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx321/CheDizz/KurtWarner.jpg

JTrain306
12-14-2010, 11:32 PM
Of course you would be in here to stalk me and make posts about me.
Don't flatter yourself, phaggot, I clicked on a thread about Kurt Warner, a QB I happen to like a lot, and 1/3 of the posts are by you turning it into a Manning thread. That's not stalking, it's you doing what you always do, ruining threads. Save your Manning garbage for the dozen other threads you post them in and try to leave some threads alone.

lovebbing
12-14-2010, 11:37 PM
i am confident that you have plenty other shortcomings.

loool



In another post you said it was all about the rings but Warner only has 1 ring thus he can't be that great. The whole rings argument is stupid as it's the biggest team stat there is out there yet you are trying to judge an individual off of it. Not to mention it creates a bunch of flawed statement for example

Bradshaw > Manning
Dilfer > Marino

It's pointless arguing with you though as you are very selective with what you want to respond to and will never finish a conversation.

first of all, kurt has been to three superbowls and started out playing arena football....

secondly, manning could never take the cardinals to the SB. period

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 11:47 PM
Don't flatter yourself, phaggot, I clicked on a thread about Kurt Warner, a QB I happen to like a lot, and 1/3 of the posts are by you turning it into a Manning thread. That's not stalking, it's you doing what you always do, ruining threads. Save your Manning garbage for the dozen other threads you post them in and try to leave some threads alone.

Naturally because you know this is the first thread you've ever showed up in that I've been posting as well. Phaggot get off my cawk.

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 11:48 PM
first of all, kurt has been to three superbowls and started out playing arena football....

secondly, manning could never take the cardinals to the SB. period

Yes very good. Look at my location I know a little bit about Kurt Warner.

Yes I'm sure Manning would have been terrible with Fitzgerald, Boldin, and Breaston as his receivers.

lovebbing
12-14-2010, 11:50 PM
Yes very good. Look at my location I know a little bit about Kurt Warner.

Yes I'm sure Manning would have been terrible with Fitzgerald, Boldin, and Breaston as his receivers.

yes, because recievers make the entire football team.

lol at vouching for recievers that kurt warner initially made look good.

FSUBRAH84
12-14-2010, 11:52 PM
This just illustrates how stupid people are for using "clutchness" and playoff stats/record for ranking QBs.

Kurt is good, but he's not even in the top 10.

Sick96stang
12-14-2010, 11:54 PM
yes, because recievers make the entire football team.

lol at vouching for recievers that kurt warner initially made look good.

Yes because Kurt was just such a mobile QB when he was playing with the cardinals :rolleyes:

Are you implying that Boldin and Fitzgerald were only good receivers because of Warner?

FSUBRAH84
12-14-2010, 11:56 PM
There is no denying that Warner benefited from playing in an innovative offense and with players like Isaac Bruce, Marshal Faulk, Tory Holt, Larry Fitzgerald, and Anquan Boldin.

You can say this about many QBs, but it doesn't make the statement any less true.

ccj804
12-14-2010, 11:57 PM
Of course this would turn into a Manning thread. I don't know why people even give Stanning attention anymore.

this. He'll defend his Suns and Manning to the death.

JTrain306
12-14-2010, 11:59 PM
Naturally because you know this is the first thread you've ever showed up in that I've been posting as well. Phaggot get off my cawk.
So the next time I post in a thread and you post in it afterwards, that means you're stalking me and followed me into the thread. Quit your ****, Stanning. You don't even post about your own team.

Sick96stang
12-15-2010, 12:06 AM
So the next time I post in a thread and you post in it afterwards, that means you're stalking me and followed me into the thread. Quit your ****, Stanning. You don't even post about your own team.

If I show up in 10+ of your threads within a months time period and respond to something you said then yes you can figure that to be true.

JTrain306
12-15-2010, 12:12 AM
If I show up in 10+ of your threads within a months time period and respond to something you said then yes you can figure that to be true.
Oh, this is YOUR thread?

Sorry then, I didn't realize it was YOUR thread.

Carry on, phagg

Sick96stang
12-15-2010, 12:17 AM
Oh, this is YOUR thread?

Sorry then, I didn't realize it was YOUR thread.

Carry on, phagg

Now you know betch.