Ben, the blessing and the curse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCsteelersfan

Why don't you man up and just admit you don't like Roethlisberger. Sure, you'll get hammered by people in this forum, but it's better than hiding your criticisms within BS compliments like the title of this thread. Stand up for what you believe and take the heat rather than making chicken $hit swipes like "Ben is an elite QB, but he isn't an elite passer." "He's incapable of quick reads and passes, and he doesn't have elite accuracy, but he's great at backyard football." Basically, you think Roethlisberger is a big doofy brute that can withstand hits and stay on his feet long enough to make a lucky throw. Your "compliment" is as insulting as just coming right out and saying that he isn't a good quarterback.

What I find interesting is that Backyard Boy has a higher career passer rating than Joe Montana, and his Cmp%, TD% and INT% are all nearly identical to Montana's. Maybe Montana was just a backyard QB as well. Then again, those stats are all meaningless because ESPN's QBR is all that matters.

---

But I do like Roethlisberger. Can I man up and like Roethlisberger? I really want to man up.

I just happen to like football more than I desire to be a homer.

Manning up (teehee) would be accepting that being an "elite QB" and being an "elite passer" are not the same thing. And that Big Ben is the former, while not being the later. That doesn't mean he isn't a darn good passer... he simply does not have the skills that elite passers do. and many elite passers don't have the skills he has.

Your description of what you think my belief of Big Ben is way off. I think he can make a ton of excellent throws. That 3rd down bullet on a 12 yard comeback/dig to Wallace on the sideline last week (just as an example). But an 18 yard, over the CB, underneath the help, thrown before the break, to the outside shoulder... not really in his repertoire.

I don't think he's incapable of making quick reads. Of course he's capable, it's just not his greatest strength. He definitely does not have elite accuracy. I mean... do you watch other QBs play? Do you really think that Ben has the same across the spectrum accuracy as the other elites?

Do you think QBR is a bad statistic?
Did you know that the Team whose QB has the higher QBR wins the game 86% of the time? QBR is a better win predictor than Total Yards, Turnover Differential, and Passer Rating. (that's a fact by the way... before you waste time arguing it)
Passer rating is a poor statistic because it has no context... it's raw.

I think Ben is a Hall of Famer. It's nice that you can compare him to a QB of a different generation. How does he compare to Peyton, Brady, Rodgers? Did you purposely avoid that comparison?

Well, how "elite" is Brady then? Ever since 2007 when they increased his work load, AND his camera's got taken away guess what?

No rings.

Peyton? One of the biggest playoff chokers of all time. For as much grief as Ben gets for his SB XL many of the same people who want to forget Ben's three prior playoff games that year, also forget that Peyton in the LONE year he won his ring, threw 3 TD passes and 7 picks.

Rodgers? If he looses in the first round again guess what? That's 4 of 5 years as a starter with no playoff wins in it. Ben on the other hand, won 10 playoff games in his first 5 seasons.

Ben won't light up fantasy boards because when we get leads in the second half? We run the ball to satisfy ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilPatrickBanana

Did you know that the Team whose QB has the higher QBR wins the game 86% of the time? QBR is a better win predictor than Total Yards, Turnover Differential, and Passer Rating. (that's a fact by the way... before you waste time arguing it)
Passer rating is a poor statistic because it has no context... it's raw.

---

Did Stephen A Smith and Trent Dilfer make you say that before or after you took their loads on your face. Go on an ESPN forum and peddle your fake facts there. The "context" of QBR is subjective. The stat is the equivalent of you proclaiming that Luck is more talented than Roethlisberger. It's not based on any factual evidence, and it's utterly moronic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crash

Well, how "elite" is Brady then? Ever since 2007 when they increased his work load, AND his camera's got taken away guess what?

No rings.

Peyton? One of the biggest playoff chokers of all time. For as much grief as Ben gets for his SB XL many of the same people who want to forget Ben's three prior playoff games that year, also forget that Peyton in the LONE year he won his ring, threw 3 TD passes and 7 picks.

Rodgers? If he looses in the first round again guess what? That's 4 of 5 years as a starter with no playoff wins in it. Ben on the other hand, won 10 playoff games in his first 5 seasons.

Ben won't light up fantasy boards because when we get leads in the second half? We run the ball to satisfy ownership.

---

If Post Season/Super Bowls is the only factor in the "elite' label, then Ben is right there... the cream of the crop.

Some of us, also like to analyze the actual abilities of these players

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCsteelersfan

Did Stephen A Smith and Trent Dilfer make you say that before or after you took their loads on your face. Go on an ESPN forum and peddle your fake facts there. The "context" of QBR is subjective. The stat is the equivalent of you proclaiming that Luck is more talented than Roethlisberger. It's not based on any factual evidence, and it's utterly moronic.

---

So the 86 percent thing is a fluke? Amazing how something made up of no factual evidence could be such an amazing predictor of success.

I'm also not sure you know what "subjective" means... or you don't know what makes up QBR.

Hey, if you like stats, and hate espn. I recommend profootballfocus.com. It has great statistics like WPA and DVOA. You'd probably hate them!

Your denial is most entertaining and appreciated

Question : What do you hate more, ESPN or African-Americans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilPatrickBanana

So the 86 percent thing is a fluke? Amazing how something made up of no factual evidence could be such an amazing predictor of success.

I'm also not sure you know what "subjective" means... or you don't know what makes up QBR.

Hey, if you like stats, and hate espn. I recommend profootballfocus.com. It has great statistics like WPA and DVOA. You'd probably hate them!

Your denial is most entertaining and appreciated

Question : What do you hate more, ESPN or African-Americans?

---

86% of the time is not a fact. 2+2=4 100% of the time, not 86% of the time. And to answer your last question, I hate the one whose d#%k you suck more. So? Which one do you suck more? ESPN or African Americans?

Advance apology to the mods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCsteelersfan

86% of the time is not a fact. 2+2=4 100% of the time, not 86% of the time. And to answer your last question, I hate the one whose d#%k you suck more. So? Which one do you suck more? ESPN or African Americans?

---

I thought crash was the retard, and you were the racist. I had no idea that you were retarded too.

Apologies