I will admit that the 4:1 is a bit high lol, 3:1 is a great ratio. If you can finish your career with a 2.5 ration you had a pretty darn good career imo.

 

Pretty much my point. So now that we have established TD/INT is not the best barometer, what should we use to measure how good a QB is? The point I'm getting to is that as of now stastically Dalton is pretty decent.

Like when have I been wrong in discussions with you, please show me. I ask you all the time to show me but you always fail to do so. When I have countless time presented straight up facts to prove you wrong. Just like early last year with all your made up stuff that I completely proved wrong with facts. I have admitted that I was wrong on here, I ended up being wrong on Carson Palmer and I admitted it. You on the other hand will argue things, and then make up arguments in the middle of it to avoid being wrong. Just like somehow you twisted the most talented comment by me into somehow you talking about just the 2005 team being better since you see that talent as a whole from starters to bench is better this year. So you nicely changed to trying to talk about which team is better to try to cover yourself. Nice try man. You say the Bengals have a bad off season blah, blah, blah and the Bengals do exactly what I talked about on why they didn't overpay for some of the guys you wanted. You wanted to always say I called the Bengals great last year, I asked you to prove where I said that. You never could because I never said it, and still never admitted you were wrong. So tell me where I am wrong, and not just in your opinion that I am wrong. Then if you can prove it to me, then I will say I was wrong.

 

The entire 2005 team is where you could start. the other thread where you change the topic from being most talented to who can make a deeper run which you pulled out of thin air as if we were talking about that for a year. you love to dance around the topic and change your wording whenever you are wrong simnply so you don't have to admit it.

Those for starters.

^The only QB I've found that has 3:1 or greater is Rodgers....Young was 2.17, Aikman was 1.17, Bradshaw was barely 1.01....

 

Who am I leaving out?

 

Point is TD:INT ratio is a terrible way to judge a QB. At the very least, if you're going to use it, use it properly. 2:1 or better is a very good ratio.

 

Wow, Aikman's number is surprising to me.

Wow, Aikman's number is surprising to me.

 

Aikman was the leader of the best team during his playing days. He wasn't the greatest QB but was part of a great team.

 

His numbers were never great, he only had 1 year where his rating was over 90. He kind of falls into a similar category as Terry Bradshaw, they got to ride the coat tails of a great team all the way to the Hall of Fame.

Aikman's career numbers

QB Rating 81

TD's 165

INT's 141

 

Very ordinary.

The entire 2005 team is where you could start. the other thread where you change the topic from being most talented to who can make a deeper run which you pulled out of thin air as if we were talking about that for a year. you love to dance around the topic and change your wording whenever you are wrong simnply so you don't have to admit it.

Those for starters.

 

Dude you don't even realize your the one who changed the topic, wow man! I did start the talent thing, and I did mention the who could make a deeper run because I SAID THAT I COULD BUY IT IF YOU BELIEVE THE 2005 TEAM COULD HAVE MADE A DEEPER RUN. So what the heck are you talking about. Now your making up stuff saying that I said the 2013 team would make a deeper run. I was even trying to help your arugment out that I could see you thinking the 2005 had a better chance at making a deeper run. So I haven't changed my stance at all on anything, I have even supported your stuff which you can't comprehend. I have stand firmly behind the 2013 team is more talented because it is, and I haven't tried to get off that subject I have tried to keep you on that subject. While also trying to look at it from your point of view, and agreeing that I could see you thinking the 2005 team had a better chance, but didn't mean it was more talented. So try again.

Dude you don't even realize your the one who changed the topic, wow man! I did start the talent thing, and I did mention the who could make a deeper run because I SAID THAT I COULD BUY IT IF YOU BELIEVE THE 2005 TEAM COULD HAVE MADE A DEEPER RUN. So what the heck are you talking about. Now your making up stuff saying that I said the 2013 team would make a deeper run. I was even trying to help your arugment out that I could see you thinking the 2005 had a better chance at making a deeper run. So I haven't changed my stance at all on anything, I have even supported your stuff which you can't comprehend. I have stand firmly behind the 2013 team is more talented because it is, and I haven't tried to get off that subject I have tried to keep you on that subject. While also trying to look at it from your point of view, and agreeing that I could see you thinking the 2005 team had a better chance, but didn't mean it was more talented. So try again.

 

There you go with the deeper run thing. Your way of dodging the subject once again. Who cares who could make a deeper run, that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

 

You see here is your problem

I never said this years team isn't among the most talented in the league, you jumped to conclusions thinking I said that. I never did.

 

The problem that you keep dodging is you said they were the most talented since the 80's and I said 2005 was more talented and went by position by position to prove my point. Now here is where you take a nose dive. After you basically agreeing you can't make yourself admit I was right so you again change the topic to who could go deeper and said 2005 probably could, but you see the problem is that wasn't the question. You are just too stubborn to admit you were proven wrong and everytime you are you change the direction. Here are the ways you've done that.

 

1 you said this years team was more talented than 2005 team. Once you saw your flaw in that you changed your meaning to depth which is totally different especially when you admit the starters on 2005 ate overall better than this years team.

 

2. Again after you refusing to admit you were wrong you make up this silly "who would go deeper in playoffs" something never even brought up before but your way of once again dodging the original debate.

 

So FC as you've seen I admitted in other topics if I was wrong yet you can't so it doesn't matter what you say from here on out because all you want to do is spin things. I'm not into that nor do I respect that kind of garbage so I will just know that you basically admitted you were wrong and I will move on.

Guys! Gettin really old...

Guys! Gettin really old...

i agree. I proved my point. I'm done.

There you go with the deeper run thing. Your way of dodging the subject once again. Who cares who could make a deeper run, that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

 

You see here is your problem

I never said this years team isn't among the most talented in the league, you jumped to conclusions thinking I said that. I never did.

 

The problem that you keep dodging is you said they were the most talented since the 80's and I said 2005 was more talented and went by position by position to prove my point. Now here is where you take a nose dive. After you basically agreeing you can't make yourself admit I was right so you again change the topic to who could go deeper and said 2005 probably could, but you see the problem is that wasn't the question. You are just too stubborn to admit you were proven wrong and everytime you are you change the direction. Here are the ways you've done that.

 

1 you said this years team was more talented than 2005 team. Once you saw your flaw in that you changed your meaning to depth which is totally different especially when you admit the starters on 2005 ate overall better than this years team.

 

2. Again after you refusing to admit you were wrong you make up this silly "who would go deeper in playoffs" something never even brought up before but your way of once again dodging the original debate.

 

So FC as you've seen I admitted in other topics if I was wrong yet you can't so it doesn't matter what you say from here on out because all you want to do is spin things. I'm not into that nor do I respect that kind of garbage so I will just know that you basically admitted you were wrong and I will move on.

 

You serious? I mean really? You really do get yourself to believe your made up things. I will say this I did mess up by assuming you knew the definition of a team. From the very beginning I said most talented team. So you listed starters. I told you countless times a team also means backups. So who was the one who changed subjects to fit their opinion? You because apparently you don't get the concept of team and I kept having to try to tell you that and now you try to spin it to I changed it to that? Once again prove me wrong and show me where I said it. For your thing to be true then my original comment would have had to be the most talented starters since the 80s. However nope not what I said and since you apparently jumped the gun and didn't see the keyword team you have made yourself look really bad.

 

Now you are trying to make yourself believe that I admitted 2005 had betters starters and I only said I would give slight edge to the offensive starters. Never said defense so once again show me where I did. I try to realize where your coming from and think maybe he just thinks 2005 could have went further. So how is that back tracking from what I said? Always have said 2013 is more talented but I could see where you like 2005 teams chances better

 

So the only person who has been lost this whole time is you. From not understanding what team means. My first statement was most talented team, not my fault you don't know what all falls under the category of team. Keep trying though.

i agree. I proved my point. I'm done.

You proved your point that you don't know what all constitutes a team? If that was your point you proved it very well.

Actually I rather not get suspended since we always get off of the subject ofa tthread. So how about we just agree to ignore each other and not make even post that we know will make the other reply. Or better yet let's make our own thread this way if we do disagree we only do it in that thread and leave these threads to topics at hand so people actually want to look at the thread.

Put me on ignore FC, it is what you should do, it will do you good so you don't have to read all the times you've been proven wrong.

 

For me, I'll reply to who I want to, I love debates.

You serious? I mean really? You really do get yourself to believe your made up things. I will say this I did mess up by assuming you knew the definition of a team. From the very beginning I said most talented team. So you listed starters. I told you countless times a team also means backups. So who was the one who changed subjects to fit their opinion? You because apparently you don't get the concept of team and I kept having to try to tell you that and now you try to spin it to I changed it to that? Once again prove me wrong and show me where I said it. For your thing to be true then my original comment would have had to be the most talented starters since the 80s. However nope not what I said and since you apparently jumped the gun and didn't see the keyword team you have made yourself look really bad.

 

Now you are trying to make yourself believe that I admitted 2005 had betters starters and I only said I would give slight edge to the offensive starters. Never said defense so once again show me where I did. I try to realize where your coming from and think maybe he just thinks 2005 could have went further. So how is that back tracking from what I said? Always have said 2013 is more talented but I could see where you like 2005 teams chances better

 

So the only person who has been lost this whole time is you. From not understanding what team means. My first statement was most talented team, not my fault you don't know what all falls under the category of team. Keep trying though.

You bore me. move on little one lol

You two should have your own forum. HB vs FC.

Put me on ignore FC, it is what you should do, it will do you good so you don't have to read all the times you've been proven wrong.

 

For me, I'll reply to who I want to, I love debates.

 

Still waiting on you to show me where you proved me wrong, except in your little imaginary world. Your little thing you think proved me wrong has people still saying jigs years team has more talent. So what exactly have you proved? Except that you couldn't comprehend what the word team meant when I said most talented team and you talked only about starters haha so as I said. If that makes you sleep better at night believing that go right ahead haha