🚀 go-pugleaf

Ronnie Townsend (ronnie@winona.csd.sgi.com) wrote:

: |> Then you tried to beat around the bush and say that you really didn't mean
: |> to say Favre didn't have only one great season and equivalent type excuses.
: |> The fact remains that you dragged this particular phrase into this thread in
: |> the hope that you could further discredit Favre, because your argument that
: |> he throws more INTs was quickly going down the drain.

: Excuse me but you seem to be forgetting that Favre DOES THROW MORE INTERCEPTIONS!!!
: That is an irrefuteable fact which even your dim-witted ass should be able to
: grasp.

Temper, temper. Again, Aikman has more INTs for his career. He has a higher
INT %.

Need we use smaller words?

:|> 70's??  The Doug Williams that I was talking about did not play in the 70's
:|> so how is that related to anything??  Doug was playing at the same time that
: |> a guy named Montana was routinely putting up QB ratings in the 90's and
: |> higher.

:Since you have shown no ability to grasp facts it shouldn't surprise me that you
:could be so stupid. Montana sat the bench for his first couple of years in the
:pros,

His second year, he played in 15 games, and chucked 274 passes.

: which by the way was also part of the 70's, while Doug Williams was thrown
: to the wolves on the worst team in the NFL.

And he was a great QB.

:|> Besides, the fact remains that Doug Williams is known for one thing, winning
:|> the Super Bowl.  That is why he is a one-game wonder.  If it wasn't for that
: |> game, no one would hardly remember him at all.

:You obviously wouldn't since you seem to have forgotten that he was drafted #1
:by Tampa Bay in 1978 and led the Bucs to the NFC title game in 1979. Now if you
: have some rationale as to why the first two years of Doug's career somehow
: don't count as playing in the 70's then I'd love to hear it.

No, he's right. I personally always thought he was great QB, and I wished
Green Bay had picked him up, but the fact remains that he would not be
remembered by most people if he hadn't won the Super Bowl.

Not fair, but people seem to forget Dan Fouts or Archie Manning when
discussing all-time great QBs, 'cause they "never won the big one."

:|> I never have tried to argue that Williams was a bad QB.  I only said that he
: |> was Doug "One-Game Wonder" Williams because his entire NFL career is
: |> basically forgotten except for that one game.  Would you care to argue any
: |> differently??

:I already have but it doesn't seem to be piercing that cement block you call a
: head.  Why shouldn't William's career be defined by his best game? That's

Because anyone can have a good game. And while YOU may think that that was
his best game, I assure you he had better. Many of them involved running
over players trying to improve his field position.

No, if that was his only good game, he would be rightfully forgettable. It
wasn't, and he wasn't.

: better than Dwight Clark, whose entire career is defined by one play. Just
: because you've forgotten Williams' career doesn't make it insignificant.

Clark's career may have been defined by that play, but he is not remembered
as a one-game-wonder, either. He DID manage to lead the NFL in receptions,
after all.

: |> Dilfer either.  More than likely, he will continue to average around a 90+
: |> QB rating over the next couple years.

: Since when does putting up big numbers exempt a player form doubt and/or
: criticism. Emmitt Smith has scored more TDs and rushed for more yards than
: anybody in the NFL over the last five years yet he still gets doubted. Why
: should Favre be immune?

Haven't seen Emmitt doubted. I've heard people say that Sanders is better,
though.

Mike