Peter King's August 2014 take, and now

Brady6 said:

That is like comparing the mileage on a 2001 Honda Accord to a 2014 Toyota Camry.. It's not comparable, at age 28 Edelman is a better player than Welker when he was at age 28 in my opinion. I was 14 when Marino retired so honestly I never saw much of him with my own eyes so I couldn't tell you what I think of him compared to Flacco or anyone else.

Click to expand...

Whatever

Bruins29 said:

people who were trying to have a civil, objective, discussion about something

Click to expand...

Has this been happening? Be honest. Because I'm not seeing it.

Deus Irae said:

Ahh.... now I know to whom you are responding. That explains a lot.

Click to expand...

Says the guy who started a should the Patriots fire Bill Belichick poll 3 weeks ago. Yeah you passing judgment on anyone is rich.

Haley said:

Has this been happening? Be honest. Because I'm not seeing it.

Click to expand...

You understand the word "were" correct?

Then someone came in here and dumped gas on some smoldering coal, which all it was.

Bruins29 said:

Bingo. He tooks a JE/WW discussion and got DA involved.

Its like algebra.

Click to expand...

You should try to comprehend things better because Edelman, Welker, and Amendola were all just content in my attempting to outline how you adjust your perspective to suit your argument. You can try and get all hot and bothered and make this about Amendola but it was not it was about you and only you, I just took the last 2 things you posted about and those were them. You want things to be seen your way which is fine but you adapt and change your philosophy on the fly and then get pissy when people dispute it. That isn't very reasonable of you in my opinion and it makes it extremely difficult for people on the board to communicate with you.

Bruins29 said:

WW was a litte twerp. That does not make JE better or diminish his accomplishments.

Click to expand...

Umm, YES IT DOES! In that specific regard Edelperson is way superior to Welker.

Bruins29 said:

You understand the word "were" correct?

Then someone came in here and dumped gas on some smoldering coal, which all it was.

Click to expand...

Lol I love how you portray me as a villain can you dress me up for Halloween this year?

Dear God, the complete idiocy of judging WRs by rings.....

Randy Moss was a lousy WR, because he didn't win a SB!
Chris Carter's in the HOF? But.... no rings!
Steve Largent sucked. Why? No rings!

Deus Irae said:

Dear God, the complete idiocy of judging WRs by rings.....

Randy Moss was a lousy WR, because he didn't win a SB!
Chris Carter's in the HOF? But.... no rings!
Steve Largent sucked. Why? No rings!

Click to expand...

Did they play on 3 of the greatest offenses in the history of the NFL, go to 3 SBs with 2 future HOF QBs and still end up with no rings? Did any of them have drop that is considered by most the reason his team lost the SB?

Your arguments are always painted with a broad stroke in an attempt to disguise how weak they are. This post exemplifies that.

Bruins29 said:

You understand the word "were" correct?

Then someone came in here and dumped gas on some smoldering coal, which all it was.

Click to expand...

What I'm seeing is quite different and it has been happening nearly the whole way through. I'm seeing a minority of individuals who post nearly every other post in an effort to drown out any opposing point of view, from both sides of the argument. I see as hominem attacks on posters. And then I wonder, why are people still posting in this thread? No one is convincing anyone of anything. Most people are just staying silent because the atmosphere is toxic.

I mean really. Asking me if I understand the word "were". Why would you behave like this? Take a break, man.

Bruins29 said:

Whatever

Click to expand...

Sometimes your posts make the lyrics to the Christina Aguilera song "you are beautiful no matter what they say" pop into my head... Words can't bring you down Bruins..

Haley said:

What I'm seeing is quite different and it has been happening nearly the whole way through. I'm seeing a minority of individuals who post nearly every other post in an effort to drown out any opposing point of view, from both sides of the argument. I see as hominem attacks on posters. And then I wonder, why are people still posting in this thread? No one is convincing anyone of anything. Most people are just staying silent because the atmosphere is toxic.

I mean really. Asking me if I understand the word "were". Why would you behave like this? Take a break, man.

Click to expand...

Actually it was a great discussion until something happened. I dont appreciate being called out when I was civil and having a nice discussion.

Brady6 said:

Sometimes your posts make the lyrics to the Christina Aguilera song "you are beautiful no matter what they say" pop into my head... Words can't bring you down Bruins..

Click to expand...

Nope. Then again I know how to answer a direct question when asked and dont cop out behind a bunch of crap.

I am done here. I made my point with the posters that I wanted to and we all got it. The other people who want to come in for table scraps can have at it.

Bruins29 said:

Nope. Then again I know how to answer a direct question when asked and dont cop out behind a bunch of crap.

I am done here. I made my point with the posters that I wanted to and we all got it. The other people who want to come in for table scraps can have at it.

Click to expand...

Direct question - hmm do I think a player I never watched who retired when I was in middle school is better than a current player who only has 5-6 years as a starting QB... Yeah sorry I could not answer that direct question for you buddy any way I'll miss you Bruins...[emoji8]

Is now a bad time to ask you to be my valentine? I just love a sensitive man who isn't afraid. to show his emotions

and I thought this would be a fun "Pile on Peter King The Moron" thread.
I was SO wrong.

Brady6 said:

I just love a sensitive man

Click to expand...

Not surprised

Brady6 said:

You cannot just pick in choose when you what matters when comparing players, you cannot base Brady and Manning on SBs and then turn around and base the Edelman and Welker comparison on stats. That is just using things when convenient.

There is a lot of convenience in the arguments on this board though, Bruins29 is in one thread lobbying for Amendola based on his last few games (which is fine), but then he is in this thread suggesting people jump to the hype for players to quickly when they do well. Personally, I would just appreciate some consistency.

Click to expand...

Comparing generals when reviewing decisions that affect a war makes sense. Blaming the loss of a war on a foot soldier, absent some "butterfly effect" logic, is absurd. You let me know when Welker or Edelman were calling audibles at the line and thus dictating play calls, and I will agree with your logic with regard to why QBs and other players are not judged under the same standard. Anyone who has played football knows there are coaches, QBs and players, in terms of how game plans are executed and their degree of importance with regard to how games turn out in the end.

Returning to your 'winners' assessment, so what is your opinion on Walter Payton, who is generally regarded as one of the greatest running backs in history - scrub or stud? He only ran for 61 yards on 22 carries in the Super Bowl against the Pats (no TDs), but his team won the game on defense. But that Bears team with one of the greatest single defensive units in history never made it back. So he couldn't carry that Bears team, thus his 16726 career rushing yards makes him a loser. Antowain Smith was the running back for the Pats in 2001 and 2003, averaging 4 and 3.5 ypc and about 850 yds per season. But he has two rings. So I assume by your logic Smith is a better running back than Walter Payton.

John Hannah never won a ring. Nor did Andre Tippett. Loser, and loser. They cannot be favorably compared to any LB or guard on the Pats teams with rings, because both must have sucked not to win a ring. The fact is it is a team sport, and outcomes for role players on that team often turn on decisions and actions that have nothing to do with the roles they executed at a high level. That is why they are both in the Hall of Fame without rings. Hannah could not hold off the entire '85 Bears defense on his own. Even lousy offenses can block 1 linebacker with enough people. A single QB, entrusted with the keys to the city, can ruin an entire offense. If you doubt that assessment, see Rex Grossman and the '06 Bears.

Brady6 said:

Did they play on 3 of the greatest offenses in the history of the NFL, go to 3 SBs with 2 future HOF QBs and still end up with no rings? Did any of them have drop that is considered by most the reason his team lost the SB?

Your arguments are always painted with a broad stroke in an attempt to disguise how weak they are. This post exemplifies that.

Click to expand...

Do you not see the irony of your posts? You're knocking a player, WR no less, for being part of 3 of the greatest offenses in NFL history and making it to 3 Super Bowls. Those are accomplishments, not failures.

It appears you're judging Welker's entire career on one bad play. Even more ironic, since you're the one who was railing on someone for getting emotional about players.

Super Bowls are great, but this is a team game. QBs reputations can live and die by SBs because they have such a large effect on the outcome of the team's play, whereas WRs and most other positions have limited impact. Is Charles Haley talked about as one of the greatest LBs of all time because he has 5 SB rings? Of course not, LBs like WRs don't make or break Super Bowls.

Welker doesn't have the best hands ever, anyone could have told you that before he ever dropped that ball. He wasn't known for making tough catches. He dropped his share. The SB drop was unfortunate, but basing his legacy on it is misguided.

Haley said:

No, you are putting words in my mouth and doing me a disservice, good sir.

We remember Wes having drop issues at IMPORTANT times. Not "the entire time", as you seem to be wanting to hear from me. That is absolutely not what I am saying. Wes was amazing most of the time.

Click to expand...

The part you quoted was clearly based on prior comments, so there was no such word putting.

More importantly, you are still making separate arguments that don't really address the points I've made. Wes wasn't a choker who dropped important catches, he was just unlucky in that his hands were already going by the time the team around him was strong enough to regularly get deep in the playoffs.

Ultimately, though, it is all pretty meaningless. You seem to agree that Wes is better than the people seem to recall, which means we are mostly splitting hairs.

I worry about Julian, I do not want to see his brain turn to mush and his playing style doesn't do much to prevent that