PDA

View Full Version : Give me Roethlisberger over Manning



Shawn
01-31-2010, 08:27 PM
Dutch asked me to post this...and soooo the fun begins. :lol:

Give me Roethlisberger over Peyton Manning
It is undoubtedly a very small group that would take Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger to lead their team instead of Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts. But even if you do fall into that select group, there is a good chance that you wonít admit it.

After all, admitting such a thing publicly would only invite ridicule. If you live in southwestern Pennsylvania, as I do, you would be considered a homer to state such an opinion. Your credibility would immediately be attacked. You could be chastised, mocked, publicly humiliated, and perhaps even spat upon for considering such argument.

Yet, through it all, the facts are clearly on your side. The following is a question-and-answer exchange I recently had with a Manning backer on this subject. Enjoy!

Manning Backer: You only want to talk about Ben having more rings up to this point. That doesnít tell the whole story. Ben having more rings has nothing to do with him being better than Manning. Canít you see this?

Dutch Wydo: Roethlisberger has one more Super Bowl victory up to this point because he out-performed Manning at Indianapolis in the 2005 playoffs. Roethlisberger came out throwing and put two early touchdowns on the board and staked his team to what turned out to be an insurmountable 14-point lead. That was the difference in the game and the reason why Ben has one more ring up to this point.

MB: Ok, How many rings do you think Manning would have if he was the quarterback of the Steelers this decade?

DW: Just one. I donít believe he could have won a Super Bowl behind the current offensive line of the Steelers.

MB: Cmon! Donít you see that Ben has been in a better situation in Pittsburgh?

DW: Incorrect. Roethlisberger won a Super Bowl with an undrafted free agent at running back. He was throwing to guys like Cedric Wilson and Antwaan Randle El. He even had a rookie Tight End starting on that Ď05 team. This is hardly Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark.

MB: Iím sorry, but you need to consider everything. Just look at the stats. What do the stats tell you?

DW: Iím sorry, but maybe you have not considered everything. What if Roethlisberger had played his home games in a dome? Ben has played seven indoor games and boasts a passer rating of 113. He has 14 TD passes against only five interceptions. Roethlisberger has completed 68% of his throws indoors at a majestic 9.4 yards per attempt. Unfortunately, he is stuck playing at Heinz Field and has to endure mud, rain, snow, and wind, along with a revolving set of receivers throughout most of his career. Yeah, great situation! Now, let me ask you a question. If you take both quarterbacks and have to choose one to play a road game, which one would you take?

MB: I think the answer is obvious. Iím taking Manning, as he is superior.

DW: Really? What evidence do you have to support that? Roethlisberger has a 91.6 career road passer rating. Manning has a 91.6 career road passer rating. Your perception that Manning is so superior simply does not equal reality, my friend.

MB: You just donít get it do you? Ben has had a great running game in place for most of his career.

DW: Edgerrin James rushed for more than 1,500 yards four times throughout his time with Manning and the Colts. Roethlisberger has never had a 1,500-yard running back.

MB: Defense, Defense, Defense, Dutch. Peyton would have won at least three Super Bowls with that Steeler defense. Címon! Canít you see this?

DW: In eight post season losses, Manningís offense averaged just 13 points per game. As to how many points his offense scored in each loss, here is the list: 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, 18, 24, 17. Now ask yourself a question. Was his defense really the problem? Even in two playoff losses to the Patriots and Jaguars, Roethlisbergerís offense was able to put 29 and 27 points, respectively, on the scoreboard.

MB: So you are trying to say that Ben is the reason they won their playoff games?

DW: Roethlisberger has the highest postseason third-down passer rating of 121.5 last five years. Should I credit Dick LeBeau for that? Besides, before this postseason started, Roethlisberger had a better passer rating, more yards per attempt, and a higher completion percentage in the postseason than Manning. You clearly underrate Roethlisberger.

MB: Are you trying to say the Colts defense has been better than the Steelers defense?

DW: No. But Indianapolisí defense has been the beneficiary of 210 turnovers since 2003. The Steelers defense has collected 190. The Colts are 16-3 over last three seasons when their defense gets two turnovers. The Steelers are 10-4. Getting defensive turnovers can be quite helpful to a quarterback as they will get short fields to work with and convert them into quick scores. This year, the New Orleans Saints averaged 11 points per game off turnovers. The Steelers cornerbacks didnít have an interception until the final week of the regular season. In fact, the Steelers offense this season projected to score 23.8 points per game based on yards and turnover differential. A lack of defensive turnovers and consistently poor special teams held back a Steeler offense averaging 6.2 yards per play more than anything else.

MB: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Peyton Manning or Ben.

DW: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Jeff Hartwig or Jeff Saturday?

MB: Dutch, look at how Pierre Garcon has played at Wide Receiver this season for the Colts. Donít you see that is because of Peyton Manning? Peyton Manning makes wide receivers.

DW: Considering the success that Steelers receiver Mike Wallace had this year, the success that Heath Miller had as a rookie, not to mention the performance Santonio Holmes had the last half of 2006. I guess that means Roethlisberger makes wide receivers, too. Also note that Nate Washington averaged 16 yards per reception with Roethlisberger as his quarterback. The averaged fell to twelve per reception this season with the Tennessee Titans. Again, Roethlisberger makes wide receivers.

MB: I think most would agree that Manning is perhaps the greatest quarterback of all time.

DW: To be the best of all time, then you would have to project to be the best in previous generations. Considering that Manningís offense is built around great timing with his receivers, Iím not convinced he would have able to achieve so much success, say, in the 1970s when his receivers would have had their heads taken off and he was forced to scramble around and make plays. That is not his game. In fact, it wasnít until Colts General Manager Bill Polian convinced the NFL in 2004 to strictly enforce the five-yard chuck rule so that his boy could get through the playoffs. Roethlisberger is great right now and would have been great in the 1960s or 1970s.

MB: Look at how Manning attacked the Jets backup cornerback when they lost their starting corner to injury. Manning is a student of the game.

DW: Of course. Manning is the only quarterback in the NFL that has the wisdom to immediately go after a back up corner who just came into the game. Heís a genius.

MB: Who do you like in the Super Bowl?

DW: Colts 38-24. It's all about Manning!

Jooser
01-31-2010, 08:41 PM
:Clap I like it!

birtikidis
01-31-2010, 08:44 PM
I love big ben, but to say he is a better qb then manning is crazy.
and I hate Manning.
of course dutch can't think unless he is fantasizing about ben.

proudpittsburgher
01-31-2010, 08:44 PM
No doubt. But you don't need a laundry list of reasons . . . Ben is a true leader who doesn't fold when the pressure is on.

birtikidis
01-31-2010, 08:47 PM
20 years from now people are still going to be talking about how Peyton Manning was the best qb to ever play the game. just like dan marino before him.
Ben will never be considered Elite for the same reason Terry Bradshaw isn't considered one of the greatest of all time.
IN pittsburgh the Rooney's believe in TEAM
In OTHER cities it's much more of "1 guy"

Scarletfire1970
01-31-2010, 08:53 PM
Good arguments for Ben.

Shawn
01-31-2010, 09:01 PM
I love big ben, but to say he is a better qb then manning is crazy.
and I hate Manning.
of course dutch can't think unless he is fantasizing about ben.

I'm open minded...but Dutch's argument is very convincing. I would love to hear your counter argument. People talking about Manning being the best doesn't mean it's so...would love to read some hard facts to support your statement.

birtikidis
01-31-2010, 09:09 PM
I love big ben, but to say he is a better qb then manning is crazy.
and I hate Manning.
of course dutch can't think unless he is fantasizing about ben.

I'm open minded...but Dutch's argument is very convincing. I would love to hear your counter argument. People talking about Manning being the best doesn't mean it's so...would love to read some hard facts to support your statement.
it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

stlrz d
01-31-2010, 10:27 PM
Nice info on Ben...but did he really have to invent a conversation with a Manning fan?

SteelTorch
01-31-2010, 10:43 PM
Nice info on Ben...but did he really have to invent a conversation with a Manning fan?
The guy refers to himself in third person on his own website...this is nothing unusual. I can sort of see why he did it, though.



MB: Are you trying to say the Colts defense has been better than the Steelers defense?

DW: No. But Indianapolisí defense has been the beneficiary of 210 turnovers since 2003. The Steelers defense has collected 190. The Colts are 16-3 over last three seasons when their defense gets two turnovers. The Steelers are 10-4. Getting defensive turnovers can be quite helpful to a quarterback as they will get short fields to work with and convert them into quick scores. This year, the New Orleans Saints averaged 11 points per game off turnovers. The Steelers cornerbacks didnít have an interception until the final week of the regular season. In fact, the Steelers offense this season projected to score 23.8 points per game based on yards and turnover differential. A lack of defensive turnovers and consistently poor special teams held back a Steeler offense averaging 6.2 yards per play more than anything else.
See, this is an example of somebody handpicking stats to suit their own argument. DW brings up turnovers but neglects to account for points given up, yards given up, or even yards per play given up by Indy's defense as compared to the Steelers. He then dodges the issue completely by moving on to the Saints. In fact, he actually supports the criticism against Ben, since the Steelers didn't make the playoffs when our defense suddenly lapsed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make excuses for Peyton Manning, this is a perfect example of why I can't take this douche seriously.

Shawn
01-31-2010, 10:54 PM
Nice info on Ben...but did he really have to invent a conversation with a Manning fan?
The guy refers to himself in third person on his own website...this is nothing unusual. I can sort of see why he did it, though.



MB: Are you trying to say the Colts defense has been better than the Steelers defense?

DW: No. But Indianapolisí defense has been the beneficiary of 210 turnovers since 2003. The Steelers defense has collected 190. The Colts are 16-3 over last three seasons when their defense gets two turnovers. The Steelers are 10-4. Getting defensive turnovers can be quite helpful to a quarterback as they will get short fields to work with and convert them into quick scores. This year, the New Orleans Saints averaged 11 points per game off turnovers. The Steelers cornerbacks didnít have an interception until the final week of the regular season. In fact, the Steelers offense this season projected to score 23.8 points per game based on yards and turnover differential. A lack of defensive turnovers and consistently poor special teams held back a Steeler offense averaging 6.2 yards per play more than anything else.
See, this is an example of somebody handpicking stats to suit their own argument. DW brings up turnovers but neglects to account for points given up, yards given up, or even yards per play given up by Indy's defense as compared to the Steelers. He then dodges the issue completely by moving on to the Saints. In fact, he actually supports the criticism against Ben, since the Steelers didn't make the playoffs when our defense suddenly lapsed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make excuses for Peyton Manning, this is a perfect example of why I can't take this douche seriously.

I see your points but think calling Dutch a douche is unproductive and uncalled for. I think we all tend to shade facts or "facts" to our side of an argument. With that said, I would like to see his counter. I love these types of debates because I have conversations with other sports fans and these just strengthen my arguments. I hope he decides to join us and I hope the members here can keep this to a respectful debate.

stlrz d
01-31-2010, 10:57 PM
Btw Shawn, there's a good deal of Ben bashing that takes place on this forum from time to time...mostly by Colts fans and by one super-douchey 49ers fan: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/vb ... prune=&f=8 (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=8)

You should tell Wydo to get hisself over there.



(I typed "hisself" purposely...it just seems appropriate)

NJ-STEELER
01-31-2010, 10:57 PM
one thing that would be intresting is the burgh's opinion if Ben ever just went down and took a sack without any contact like peyton has done twice in the last couple of games

SteelTorch
01-31-2010, 10:58 PM
I see your points but think calling Dutch a douche is unproductive and uncalled for. I think we all tend to shade facts or "facts" to our side of an argument. With that said, I would like to see his counter. I love these types of debates because I have conversations with other sports fans and these just strengthen my arguments. I hope he decides to join us and I hope the members here can keep this to a respectful debate.
He was banned twice from this board already for being that noun I just used above. Not going to happen anytime soon. :)

"Dutch the Douche" has a nice ring to it, though. :lol:

Shawn
01-31-2010, 10:58 PM
I love big ben, but to say he is a better qb then manning is crazy.
and I hate Manning.
of course dutch can't think unless he is fantasizing about ben.

I'm open minded...but Dutch's argument is very convincing. I would love to hear your counter argument. People talking about Manning being the best doesn't mean it's so...would love to read some hard facts to support your statement.
it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

I'll grant you that and agree. I think Manning would have done very well in the Burgh. I don't think SB rings is a great measure of a QB. There are too many variables. But, some of the other points are more solid and pretty hard to argue with. QB ratings tell you quite a bit...ypp tell you alot as well. SBs and wins less so.

birtikidis
01-31-2010, 10:58 PM
shawn, the problem with have dutch here is he doesn't know how to have a debate. some people can't debate without getting there emotions in the way. if he comes here, we should make him promise to NEVER debate anything related to Ben. he only see's what he wants to see when it comes to him.

Shawn
01-31-2010, 10:59 PM
one thing that would be intresting is the burgh opinion if Ben ever just went down and took a sack without any contact like peyton has done twice in the last couple of games

Agreed...of course the argument would be that Manning gets rid of the ball quicker.

PSU_dropout43
01-31-2010, 11:33 PM
it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

Hey moron, can you prove that?

"if's" are for children...children play the "if" games, adults don't.

Gotta love morons. Without them, how would we be entertained?

papillon
01-31-2010, 11:37 PM
it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

Hey moron, can you prove that?

"if's" are for children...children play the "if" games, adults don't.

Gotta love morons. Without them, how would we be entertained?

Wrong board...

Pappy

Flasteel
01-31-2010, 11:52 PM
Dutch asked me to post this...and soooo the fun begins. :lol:

Give me Roethlisberger over Peyton Manning
It is undoubtedly a very small group that would take Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger to lead their team instead of Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts. But even if you do fall into that select group, there is a good chance that you wonít admit it.

After all, admitting such a thing publicly would only invite ridicule. If you live in southwestern Pennsylvania, as I do, you would be considered a homer to state such an opinion. Your credibility would immediately be attacked. You could be chastised, mocked, publicly humiliated, and perhaps even spat upon for considering such argument.

Yet, through it all, the facts are clearly on your side. The following is a question-and-answer exchange I recently had with a Manning backer on this subject. Enjoy!

Manning Backer: You only want to talk about Ben having more rings up to this point. That doesnít tell the whole story. Ben having more rings has nothing to do with him being better than Manning. Canít you see this?

Dutch Wydo: Roethlisberger has one more Super Bowl victory up to this point because he out-performed Manning at Indianapolis in the 2005 playoffs. Roethlisberger came out throwing and put two early touchdowns on the board and staked his team to what turned out to be an insurmountable 14-point lead. That was the difference in the game and the reason why Ben has one more ring up to this point.

MB: Ok, How many rings do you think Manning would have if he was the quarterback of the Steelers this decade?

DW: Just one. I donít believe he could have won a Super Bowl behind the current offensive line of the Steelers.

MB: Cmon! Donít you see that Ben has been in a better situation in Pittsburgh?

DW: Incorrect. Roethlisberger won a Super Bowl with an undrafted free agent at running back. He was throwing to guys like Cedric Wilson and Antwaan Randle El. He even had a rookie Tight End starting on that Ď05 team. This is hardly Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark.

MB: Iím sorry, but you need to consider everything. Just look at the stats. What do the stats tell you?

DW: Iím sorry, but maybe you have not considered everything. What if Roethlisberger had played his home games in a dome? Ben has played seven indoor games and boasts a passer rating of 113. He has 14 TD passes against only five interceptions. Roethlisberger has completed 68% of his throws indoors at a majestic 9.4 yards per attempt. Unfortunately, he is stuck playing at Heinz Field and has to endure mud, rain, snow, and wind, along with a revolving set of receivers throughout most of his career. Yeah, great situation! Now, let me ask you a question. If you take both quarterbacks and have to choose one to play a road game, which one would you take?

MB: I think the answer is obvious. Iím taking Manning, as he is superior.

DW: Really? What evidence do you have to support that? Roethlisberger has a 91.6 career road passer rating. Manning has a 91.6 career road passer rating. Your perception that Manning is so superior simply does not equal reality, my friend.

MB: You just donít get it do you? Ben has had a great running game in place for most of his career.

DW: Edgerrin James rushed for more than 1,500 yards four times throughout his time with Manning and the Colts. Roethlisberger has never had a 1,500-yard running back.

MB: Defense, Defense, Defense, Dutch. Peyton would have won at least three Super Bowls with that Steeler defense. Címon! Canít you see this?

DW: In eight post season losses, Manningís offense averaged just 13 points per game. As to how many points his offense scored in each loss, here is the list: 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, 18, 24, 17. Now ask yourself a question. Was his defense really the problem? Even in two playoff losses to the Patriots and Jaguars, Roethlisbergerís offense was able to put 29 and 27 points, respectively, on the scoreboard.

MB: So you are trying to say that Ben is the reason they won their playoff games?

DW: Roethlisberger has the highest postseason third-down passer rating of 121.5 last five years. Should I credit bad word LeBeau for that? Besides, before this postseason started, Roethlisberger had a better passer rating, more yards per attempt, and a higher completion percentage in the postseason than Manning. You clearly underrate Roethlisberger.

MB: Are you trying to say the Colts defense has been better than the Steelers defense?

DW: No. But Indianapolisí defense has been the beneficiary of 210 turnovers since 2003. The Steelers defense has collected 190. The Colts are 16-3 over last three seasons when their defense gets two turnovers. The Steelers are 10-4. Getting defensive turnovers can be quite helpful to a quarterback as they will get short fields to work with and convert them into quick scores. This year, the New Orleans Saints averaged 11 points per game off turnovers. The Steelers cornerbacks didnít have an interception until the final week of the regular season. In fact, the Steelers offense this season projected to score 23.8 points per game based on yards and turnover differential. A lack of defensive turnovers and consistently poor special teams held back a Steeler offense averaging 6.2 yards per play more than anything else.

MB: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Peyton Manning or Ben.

DW: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Jeff Hartwig or Jeff Saturday?

MB: Dutch, look at how Pierre Garcon has played at Wide Receiver this season for the Colts. Donít you see that is because of Peyton Manning? Peyton Manning makes wide receivers.

DW: Considering the success that Steelers receiver Mike Wallace had this year, the success that Heath Miller had as a rookie, not to mention the performance Santonio Holmes had the last half of 2006. I guess that means Roethlisberger makes wide receivers, too. Also note that Nate Washington averaged 16 yards per reception with Roethlisberger as his quarterback. The averaged fell to twelve per reception this season with the Tennessee Titans. Again, Roethlisberger makes wide receivers.

MB: I think most would agree that Manning is perhaps the greatest quarterback of all time.

DW: To be the best of all time, then you would have to project to be the best in previous generations. Considering that Manningís offense is built around great timing with his receivers, Iím not convinced he would have able to achieve so much success, say, in the 1970s when his receivers would have had their heads taken off and he was forced to scramble around and make plays. That is not his game. In fact, it wasnít until Colts General Manager Bill Polian convinced the NFL in 2004 to strictly enforce the five-yard chuck rule so that his boy could get through the playoffs. Roethlisberger is great right now and would have been great in the 1960s or 1970s.

MB: Look at how Manning attacked the Jets backup cornerback when they lost their starting corner to injury. Manning is a student of the game.

DW: Of course. Manning is the only quarterback in the NFL that has the wisdom to immediately go after a back up corner who just came into the game. Heís a genius.

MB: Who do you like in the Super Bowl?

DW: Colts 38-24. It's all about Manning!

Something is not right here. One of the things that used to make me laugh was Wydo's intent to write a book. The reason I found it so funny was that he had a somewhat poor grasp of grammar and spelling, and always seemed to screw up the proper use of "their", "they're", and "there". His writing was also disjointed at times, with very little flow. It was something he admitted and said he would rely on editing to correct.

I never thought that Wydo was a stupid man, but I find it difficult to believe that he has improved his writing this much. However, I will say that the article has some unmistakable Dutchisms. There are plenty of stats, mention of the average per attempt stat, and it was quite heavy on the man-love for Ben. I'm not sure what's going on here, but something doesn't seem right with this.

By the way Shawn, what's going on with you singing MSM's praises in one thread and now delivering messages supposedly written by him in this one?

Just askin'.

birtikidis
01-31-2010, 11:56 PM
it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

Hey moron, can you prove that?

"if's" are for children...children play the "if" games, adults don't.

Gotta love morons. Without them, how would we be entertained?
dur dur dur
way to make a coherent arguement.
opinions are like a$$holes every one has one. you must be mine.

Shawn
02-01-2010, 12:53 AM
it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

Hey moron, can you prove that?

"if's" are for children...children play the "if" games, adults don't.

Gotta love morons. Without them, how would we be entertained?

Wrong board...

Pappy

$$$

BATMAN
02-01-2010, 12:59 AM
Ben will never get the playing respect he deserves in my opinion. I think many of these guys that now spew the NFL talk via the media, do not care for the Steelers.

Also maybe Ben is the snob or buttplug many seem to claim he is ? Maybe he has turned off the sports writers in his favor ? Before you get yourselves in lather, just throwing stuff out here for the debate of it all.


Manning had taken a team that never did too well since their move from Baltimore and turned things around. Ben is on a team that had its share of Super Bowl appearances and mostly always in the playoffs prior to his signing.


Manning sure is good but so is Ben. I think Ben fits our Steelers and I doubt Manning could survive behind our line. Maybe Manning would make our line less noticable ?

After all my talk and nothing really said, I have this question or ask your thoughts about this.

Who's better, Ben or Drew Brees ? Right now on the NFL channel they're all in a twist over Drew Brees being an elite QB.

WTH ? Ben has won two Super Bowls and I've never heard these guys breath a word of Ben being an elite QB.

Brees elite with no Super Bowl rings and Ben the step child with two Super Bowl rings.

Shawn
02-01-2010, 01:09 AM
Dutch asked me to post this...and soooo the fun begins. :lol:

Give me Roethlisberger over Peyton Manning
It is undoubtedly a very small group that would take Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger to lead their team instead of Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts. But even if you do fall into that select group, there is a good chance that you wonít admit it.

After all, admitting such a thing publicly would only invite ridicule. If you live in southwestern Pennsylvania, as I do, you would be considered a homer to state such an opinion. Your credibility would immediately be attacked. You could be chastised, mocked, publicly humiliated, and perhaps even spat upon for considering such argument.

Yet, through it all, the facts are clearly on your side. The following is a question-and-answer exchange I recently had with a Manning backer on this subject. Enjoy!

Manning Backer: You only want to talk about Ben having more rings up to this point. That doesnít tell the whole story. Ben having more rings has nothing to do with him being better than Manning. Canít you see this?

Dutch Wydo: Roethlisberger has one more Super Bowl victory up to this point because he out-performed Manning at Indianapolis in the 2005 playoffs. Roethlisberger came out throwing and put two early touchdowns on the board and staked his team to what turned out to be an insurmountable 14-point lead. That was the difference in the game and the reason why Ben has one more ring up to this point.

MB: Ok, How many rings do you think Manning would have if he was the quarterback of the Steelers this decade?

DW: Just one. I donít believe he could have won a Super Bowl behind the current offensive line of the Steelers.

MB: Cmon! Donít you see that Ben has been in a better situation in Pittsburgh?

DW: Incorrect. Roethlisberger won a Super Bowl with an undrafted free agent at running back. He was throwing to guys like Cedric Wilson and Antwaan Randle El. He even had a rookie Tight End starting on that Ď05 team. This is hardly Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark.

MB: Iím sorry, but you need to consider everything. Just look at the stats. What do the stats tell you?

DW: Iím sorry, but maybe you have not considered everything. What if Roethlisberger had played his home games in a dome? Ben has played seven indoor games and boasts a passer rating of 113. He has 14 TD passes against only five interceptions. Roethlisberger has completed 68% of his throws indoors at a majestic 9.4 yards per attempt. Unfortunately, he is stuck playing at Heinz Field and has to endure mud, rain, snow, and wind, along with a revolving set of receivers throughout most of his career. Yeah, great situation! Now, let me ask you a question. If you take both quarterbacks and have to choose one to play a road game, which one would you take?

MB: I think the answer is obvious. Iím taking Manning, as he is superior.

DW: Really? What evidence do you have to support that? Roethlisberger has a 91.6 career road passer rating. Manning has a 91.6 career road passer rating. Your perception that Manning is so superior simply does not equal reality, my friend.

MB: You just donít get it do you? Ben has had a great running game in place for most of his career.

DW: Edgerrin James rushed for more than 1,500 yards four times throughout his time with Manning and the Colts. Roethlisberger has never had a 1,500-yard running back.

MB: Defense, Defense, Defense, Dutch. Peyton would have won at least three Super Bowls with that Steeler defense. Címon! Canít you see this?

DW: In eight post season losses, Manningís offense averaged just 13 points per game. As to how many points his offense scored in each loss, here is the list: 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, 18, 24, 17. Now ask yourself a question. Was his defense really the problem? Even in two playoff losses to the Patriots and Jaguars, Roethlisbergerís offense was able to put 29 and 27 points, respectively, on the scoreboard.

MB: So you are trying to say that Ben is the reason they won their playoff games?

DW: Roethlisberger has the highest postseason third-down passer rating of 121.5 last five years. Should I credit bad word LeBeau for that? Besides, before this postseason started, Roethlisberger had a better passer rating, more yards per attempt, and a higher completion percentage in the postseason than Manning. You clearly underrate Roethlisberger.

MB: Are you trying to say the Colts defense has been better than the Steelers defense?

DW: No. But Indianapolisí defense has been the beneficiary of 210 turnovers since 2003. The Steelers defense has collected 190. The Colts are 16-3 over last three seasons when their defense gets two turnovers. The Steelers are 10-4. Getting defensive turnovers can be quite helpful to a quarterback as they will get short fields to work with and convert them into quick scores. This year, the New Orleans Saints averaged 11 points per game off turnovers. The Steelers cornerbacks didnít have an interception until the final week of the regular season. In fact, the Steelers offense this season projected to score 23.8 points per game based on yards and turnover differential. A lack of defensive turnovers and consistently poor special teams held back a Steeler offense averaging 6.2 yards per play more than anything else.

MB: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Peyton Manning or Ben.

DW: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Jeff Hartwig or Jeff Saturday?

MB: Dutch, look at how Pierre Garcon has played at Wide Receiver this season for the Colts. Donít you see that is because of Peyton Manning? Peyton Manning makes wide receivers.

DW: Considering the success that Steelers receiver Mike Wallace had this year, the success that Heath Miller had as a rookie, not to mention the performance Santonio Holmes had the last half of 2006. I guess that means Roethlisberger makes wide receivers, too. Also note that Nate Washington averaged 16 yards per reception with Roethlisberger as his quarterback. The averaged fell to twelve per reception this season with the Tennessee Titans. Again, Roethlisberger makes wide receivers.

MB: I think most would agree that Manning is perhaps the greatest quarterback of all time.

DW: To be the best of all time, then you would have to project to be the best in previous generations. Considering that Manningís offense is built around great timing with his receivers, Iím not convinced he would have able to achieve so much success, say, in the 1970s when his receivers would have had their heads taken off and he was forced to scramble around and make plays. That is not his game. In fact, it wasnít until Colts General Manager Bill Polian convinced the NFL in 2004 to strictly enforce the five-yard chuck rule so that his boy could get through the playoffs. Roethlisberger is great right now and would have been great in the 1960s or 1970s.

MB: Look at how Manning attacked the Jets backup cornerback when they lost their starting corner to injury. Manning is a student of the game.

DW: Of course. Manning is the only quarterback in the NFL that has the wisdom to immediately go after a back up corner who just came into the game. Heís a genius.

MB: Who do you like in the Super Bowl?

DW: Colts 38-24. It's all about Manning!

Something is not right here. One of the things that used to make me laugh was Wydo's intent to write a book. The reason I found it so funny was that he had a somewhat poor grasp of grammar and spelling, and always seemed to screw up the proper use of "their", "they're", and "there". His writing was also disjointed at times, with very little flow. It was something he admitted and said he would rely on editing to correct.

I never thought that Wydo was a stupid man, but I find it difficult to believe that he has improved his writing this much. However, I will say that the article has some unmistakable Dutchisms. There are plenty of stats, mention of the average per attempt stat, and it was quite heavy on the man-love for Ben. I'm not sure what's going on here, but something doesn't seem right with this.

By the way Shawn, what's going on with you singing MSM's praises in one thread and now delivering messages supposedly written by him in this one?

Just askin'.

You have a good eye but I wouldn't read too much into it. I am not here for douchebaggery...and claiming Dutch wrote something I wrote would be exactly that. Dutch became a large resource for my board. We came to a mutual respect for one another. We email each other quite a bit and discuss boards and football.

I never asked Dutch directly how his writing improved so drastically but it's obvious that it has. You do know he writes for the Herald now? I have links to most of his articles. So, he either took some classes or has help of some sort. His writing and radio show got Ben's agents attention...Ben listened to his show...read some of his articles and granted him an interview. Have you heard the interview? It's on Dutch's site. I think you will be surprised.

As for why I posted his post...well because he asked me to. I emailed him asking him to come back over...he said he has been banned and his ip banned so unless John decides to let him back...he won't be. So, if he isn't unbanned you will probably see a few articles posted for discussion.

I know some of you don't want him back. I know some of you don't like the guy. And unless he could come back without drama it won't happen.

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 01:13 AM
Ben will never get the playing respect he deserves in my opinion. I think many of these guys that now spew the NFL talk via the media, do not care for the Steelers.

no, I think it's because manning is an individual on an average team, ben is a part of a TEAM

Also maybe Ben is the snob or buttplug many seem to claim he is ? Maybe he has turned off the sports writers in his favor ? Before you get yourselves in lather, just throwing stuff out here for the debate of it all.

No i don't think this is it either

Manning had taken a team that never did too well since their move from Baltimore and turned things around. Ben is on a team that had its share of Super Bowl appearances and mostly always in the playoffs prior to his signing.

exactly, our FORMULA has shown that with even below average players at one or two positions our team is able to still get it done

Manning sure is good but so is Ben. I think Ben fits our Steelers and I doubt Manning could survive behind our line. Maybe Manning would make our line less noticable ?

I think he would. of course we would be a lot less exciting

After all my talk and nothing really said, I have this question or ask your thoughts about this.

Who's better, Ben or Drew Brees ? Right now on the NFL channel they're all in a twist over Drew Brees being an elite QB.

I love drew brees, the guy is amazing. has he done more with less than any other qb in recent history? I think

WTH ? Ben has won two Super Bowls and I've never heard these guys breath a word of Ben being an elite QB.

It's because we have so many good players and our team is always good and you can't just say it's one guy.

Brees elite with no Super Bowl rings and Ben the step child with two Super Bowl rings.

this is alot of the "story" he was discarded went to one of the worst teams in teh NFL and turns them around. then katrina hits, tell me it doesn't make you want them to win!

Shawn
02-01-2010, 01:23 AM
Btw Shawn, there's a good deal of Ben bashing that takes place on this forum from time to time...mostly by Colts fans and by one super-douchey 49ers fan: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/vb ... prune=&f=8 (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=8)

You should tell Wydo to get hisself over there.



(I typed "hisself" purposely...it just seems appropriate)

I'll let him know...I'm sure he could ruffle a few feathers over there.

Shawn
02-01-2010, 01:24 AM
shawn, the problem with have dutch here is he doesn't know how to have a debate. some people can't debate without getting there emotions in the way. if he comes here, we should make him promise to NEVER debate anything related to Ben. he only see's what he wants to see when it comes to him.

It doesn't look like he will be back unless he masters the art of using a proxy. :lol:

BURGH86STEEL
02-01-2010, 01:31 AM
Ben is a good QB but Manning is better. I know what I see what my own two eyes.

Manning will be mentioned in the same breath with the greatest QB's of all time. Ben will probably fall in the next tier of QB's. Only time will tell if that will be good enough to get into the HOF.

Captain Lemming
02-01-2010, 02:05 AM
Wait. When Peyton loses the Colts average 13 points. A "top five defense" will not fix that. Peyton is losing those games, not the defense.

Peyton is a great regular season QB. This makes his chokes more prominent. Peyton has had all of ONE good playoff run. THIS ONE. Even on his last SB run his play tanked compared to the regular season.

And this is the point. Rings alone are not the issue. Peyton does not get outscored in shootouts because of a porous defense. A QB can play well in a loss. PEYTONS PERSONAL PLAY STINKING is WHY the Colts lose playoff games.

13 points per loss. It aint the loss, it is Peytons 13 in losses. I bet Kurt Warner averages double that in postseason losses.

If Peyton played playoff games like he does the regular season the Colts would be a DYNASTY.

If you put Peyton on the less talented Steeler offense and he scores 13, he aint getting no ring no matter how good the D is.



it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 02:11 AM
Wait. When Peyton loses the Colts average 13 points. A "top five defense" will not fix that. Peyton is losing those games, not the defense.

Peyton is a great regular season QB. This makes his chokes more prominent. Peyton has had all of ONE good playoff run. THIS ONE. Even on his last SB run his play tanked compared to the regular season.

And this is the point. Rings alone are not the issue. Peyton does not get outscored in shootouts because of a porous defense. A QB can play well in a loss. PEYTONS PERSONAL PLAY STINKING is WHY the Colts lose playoff games.

13 points per loss. It aint the loss, it is Peytons 13 in losses. I bet Kurt Warner averages double that in postseason losses.

If Peyton played playoff games like he does the regular season the Colts would be a DYNASTY.

If you put Peyton on the less talented Steeler offense and he scores 13, he aint getting no ring no matter how good the D is.



it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.
so you're saying that Ben hasn't had any bad games that HE lost. HELL he almost lost our super bowl and he did lose the afccg (and nearly the game before that against the jets). Ben has lost his fair share of games due to poor play in half the amount of games.

skyhawk
02-01-2010, 02:22 AM
I love big ben, but to say he is a better qb then manning is crazy.
and I hate Manning.
of course dutch can't think unless he is fantasizing about ben.

I'm open minded...but Dutch's argument is very convincing. I would love to hear your counter argument. People talking about Manning being the best doesn't mean it's so...would love to read some hard facts to support your statement.
it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

I'll grant you that and agree. I think Manning would have done very well in the Burgh. I don't think SB rings is a great measure of a QB. There are too many variables. But, some of the other points are more solid and pretty hard to argue with. QB ratings tell you quite a bit...ypp tell you alot as well. SBs and wins less so.

:wft You've got to be kidding. I guess Joe Montana sucked then since he has only 4 SB rings.

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 02:29 AM
I look at it this way: the colts are dominant over and over again. but the only player you hear about is manning. maybe freeney. that's it. when you think pittsburgh, ben isn't even the 3 or 4th guy you think of.
and like i said, I love ben, he's great. but Manning is ridiculous.

Captain Lemming
02-01-2010, 04:17 AM
Wait. When Peyton loses the Colts average 13 points. A "top five defense" will not fix that. Peyton is losing those games, not the defense.

Peyton is a great regular season QB. This makes his chokes more prominent. Peyton has had all of ONE good playoff run. THIS ONE. Even on his last SB run his play tanked compared to the regular season.

And this is the point. Rings alone are not the issue. Peyton does not get outscored in shootouts because of a porous defense. A QB can play well in a loss. PEYTONS PERSONAL PLAY STINKING is WHY the Colts lose playoff games.

13 points per loss. It aint the loss, it is Peytons 13 in losses. I bet Kurt Warner averages double that in postseason losses.

If Peyton played playoff games like he does the regular season the Colts would be a DYNASTY.

If you put Peyton on the less talented Steeler offense and he scores 13, he aint getting no ring no matter how good the D is.



it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.
so you're saying that Ben hasn't had any bad games that HE lost. HELL he almost lost our super bowl and he did lose the afccg (and nearly the game before that against the jets). Ben has lost his fair share of games due to poor play in half the amount of games.

No, I am saying that Ben has been a BETTER PLAYOFF QB THAN MANNING by any measure.

Did you miss this:
In eight post season losses, Manningís offense averaged just 13 points per game. As to how many points his offense scored in each loss, here is the list: 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, 18, 24, 17. Now ask yourself a question. Was his defense really the problem? Even in two playoff losses to the Patriots and Jaguars, Roethlisbergerís offense was able to put 29 and 27 points, respectively, on the scoreboard.

Bens LEAST POINT total in a playoff loss is not zero like Peyton, not 3 like another occasion but 27.
Ben has NEVER been as bad in a playoff loss as Peyton routinely is.

Dude the most explosive reg seaon QB of this era averages 13 in losses and you blame the defense? Come on dude dont look at a goose egg on o and say it was the defense.

Ben is clutch in big games, Peyton has not been....going back to college.
Choke after bowl choke Peyton grads and Tee stinking Martin took Peytons Tenn team to the National Champoinship.

I will say this. This is Peytons FIRST quality playoff run. Maybe he is finally over it. But Ben has more rings because he has been a better playoff QB.

Captain Lemming
02-01-2010, 04:20 AM
I look at it this way: the colts are dominant over and over again. but the only player you hear about is manning. maybe freeney. that's it. when you think pittsburgh, ben isn't even the 3 or 4th guy you think of.
and like i said, I love ben, he's great. but Manning is ridiculous.

Remember Vick on Atlanta? Lets just dump Ben and grab Mike Vick if that is your criteria.

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 05:04 AM
I look at it this way: the colts are dominant over and over again. but the only player you hear about is manning. maybe freeney. that's it. when you think pittsburgh, ben isn't even the 3 or 4th guy you think of.
and like i said, I love ben, he's great. but Manning is ridiculous.

Remember Vick on Atlanta? Lets just dump Ben and grab Mike Vick if that is your criteria.
are you serious? are you really trying to make this arguement? i know mannings history, i know how he's been since he was in hs let alone college.
unless you can only selectively hear, I said that I can't stand manning. the fact that he gets to the playoffs nearly every year he's been a pro (all but 2 seasons out of 12)and the fact that the ONLY reason they're there is because of him tells me that he's a good player.
But he is the ONLY good player on that team. there's a reason he's a four time NFL MVP. you can't tell me that Indy has as good of a TEAM as the Steelers. we have solid players at EVERY position and great players at MANY positions. I don't think you can say that about the colts. they have one GREAT player on each side of the ball and that's it. those kinds of teams are going to be exposed in the playoffs. same way Jerome Bettis was exposed in teh playoffs when we had kordell stewart as the qb.
and the VICK reference was STUPID. you may as well have said something about Kordell being great.

Flasteel
02-01-2010, 09:03 AM
Something is not right here. One of the things that used to make me laugh was Wydo's intent to write a book. The reason I found it so funny was that he had a somewhat poor grasp of grammar and spelling, and always seemed to screw up the proper use of "their", "they're", and "there". His writing was also disjointed at times, with very little flow. It was something he admitted and said he would rely on editing to correct.

I never thought that Wydo was a stupid man, but I find it difficult to believe that he has improved his writing this much. However, I will say that the article has some unmistakable Dutchisms. There are plenty of stats, mention of the average per attempt stat, and it was quite heavy on the man-love for Ben. I'm not sure what's going on here, but something doesn't seem right with this.

By the way Shawn, what's going on with you singing MSM's praises in one thread and now delivering messages supposedly written by him in this one?

Just askin'.

You have a good eye but I wouldn't read too much into it. I am not here for douchebaggery...and claiming Dutch wrote something I wrote would be exactly that. Dutch became a large resource for my board. We came to a mutual respect for one another. We email each other quite a bit and discuss boards and football.

I never asked Dutch directly how his writing improved so drastically but it's obvious that it has. You do know he writes for the Herald now? I have links to most of his articles. So, he either took some classes or has help of some sort. His writing and radio show got Ben's agents attention...Ben listened to his show...read some of his articles and granted him an interview. Have you heard the interview? It's on Dutch's site. I think you will be surprised.

As for why I posted his post...well because he asked me to. I emailed him asking him to come back over...he said he has been banned and his ip banned so unless John decides to let him back...he won't be. So, if he isn't unbanned you will probably see a few articles posted for discussion.

I know some of you don't want him back. I know some of you don't like the guy. And unless he could come back without drama it won't happen.

Great answers Shawn...thanks!

For the record, I cannot stand anything about MSM. I would not mind however the banishment being lifted.

Shawn
02-01-2010, 09:05 AM
I love big ben, but to say he is a better qb then manning is crazy.
and I hate Manning.
of course dutch can't think unless he is fantasizing about ben.

I'm open minded...but Dutch's argument is very convincing. I would love to hear your counter argument. People talking about Manning being the best doesn't mean it's so...would love to read some hard facts to support your statement.
it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

I'll grant you that and agree. I think Manning would have done very well in the Burgh. I don't think SB rings is a great measure of a QB. There are too many variables. But, some of the other points are more solid and pretty hard to argue with. QB ratings tell you quite a bit...ypp tell you alot as well. SBs and wins less so.

:wft You've got to be kidding. I guess Joe Montana sucked then since he has only 4 SB rings.

Nope I'm not kidding. When measuring the ability of a QB...using SB #'s alone is short sighted at best. It should be an after thought because so much goes into winning a SB.

Now when talking about a QBs HoF status..."greatness"...yeah they will always use SBs and overall passing yards. And in my opinion that should only be part of the equation. But who am I? It's done the way it's done...but I believe a QBs QB rating is the best way to measure his ability if forced to choose one stat. It certainly wouldn't be SB rings.

stlrz d
02-01-2010, 09:36 AM
I look at it this way: the colts are dominant over and over again. but the only player you hear about is manning. maybe freeney. that's it. when you think pittsburgh, ben isn't even the 3 or 4th guy you think of.
and like i said, I love ben, he's great. but Manning is ridiculous.

I'm a defensive guy. Always have been...always will be. Just look at my user name.

But when I think Steelers these days Ben is the first guy who pops into my head. Followed by Troy.

Mike Wilbon is a pretty smart, no-nonsense kind of guy. He said that if he needs a TD with 2 minutes left on the clock then Ben is his guy.

That's saying a lot.

Shawn
02-01-2010, 10:14 AM
I look at it this way: the colts are dominant over and over again. but the only player you hear about is manning. maybe freeney. that's it. when you think pittsburgh, ben isn't even the 3 or 4th guy you think of.
and like i said, I love ben, he's great. but Manning is ridiculous.

Remember Vick on Atlanta? Lets just dump Ben and grab Mike Vick if that is your criteria.
are you serious? are you really trying to make this arguement? i know mannings history, i know how he's been since he was in hs let alone college.
unless you can only selectively hear, I said that I can't stand manning. the fact that he gets to the playoffs nearly every year he's been a pro (all but 2 seasons out of 12)and the fact that the ONLY reason they're there is because of him tells me that he's a good player.
But he is the ONLY good player on that team. there's a reason he's a four time NFL MVP. you can't tell me that Indy has as good of a TEAM as the Steelers. we have solid players at EVERY position and great players at MANY positions. I don't think you can say that about the colts. they have one GREAT player on each side of the ball and that's it. those kinds of teams are going to be exposed in the playoffs. same way Jerome Bettis was exposed in teh playoffs when we had kordell stewart as the qb.
and the VICK reference was STUPID. you may as well have said something about Kordell being great.

Last season...do you believe we would have even made it to the playoffs without Ben? I would argue...not a chance. For what Manning does...there is no one better. I won't argue that. Manning is a timing QB and has always been surrounded by offensive talent. Get pressure and challenge his WRs at the LOS...and do these things well . And he becomes a very average QB. He has zero improv ability. He has no skills to extend a play, scramble and make things happen. That's Ben's game and few would argue that anyone does it better. When called upon to take a game on his back...Ben delivers...he is a winner. He is the kind of QB you don't give 2 minutes to at the end of the game. He is elite...possibly the best in the game. The only numbers he can't compete with Manning in are numbers that reflect passing attempts.

Captain Lemming
02-01-2010, 11:23 AM
I look at it this way: the colts are dominant over and over again. but the only player you hear about is manning. maybe freeney. that's it. when you think pittsburgh, ben isn't even the 3 or 4th guy you think of.
and like i said, I love ben, he's great. but Manning is ridiculous.

Remember Vick on Atlanta? Lets just dump Ben and grab Mike Vick if that is your criteria.
are you serious? are you really trying to make this arguement? i know mannings history, i know how he's been since he was in hs let alone college.
unless you can only selectively hear, I said that I can't stand manning. the fact that he gets to the playoffs nearly every year he's been a pro (all but 2 seasons out of 12)and the fact that the ONLY reason they're there is because of him tells me that he's a good player.
But he is the ONLY good player on that team. there's a reason he's a four time NFL MVP. you can't tell me that Indy has as good of a TEAM as the Steelers. we have solid players at EVERY position and great players at MANY positions. I don't think you can say that about the colts. they have one GREAT player on each side of the ball and that's it. those kinds of teams are going to be exposed in the playoffs.

On OFFENSE?
The Colts have been WAY more talented than Bens sb teams. Not even close.

All pro WRs Edge getting 1500 tards, before him Marshall Faulk, and a much better Oline.
THE PROBLEMS WHEN THEY LOSE IS THE OFFENSE.

Never mind defense, why does our OFFENSE under ben been worlds better than Peytons?

Why are Bens playoff numbers so much better, when Peytons "offensive" talent has been better?

In fact a case can be made that during NE entire run the Colts had the better offense. NE has never won a SB with a great receiver or RB. Why doesnt Tom Brady get exposed? Dont tell ne about their defense.

WHY ARE BRADYs NUMBERS SO MUCH BETTER IN THE PLAYOFFS THAN MANNING WHEN HE HAD NO TALENT?

Stop making excuses, he has beeen a choker.

SteelTorch
02-01-2010, 11:47 AM
Nope I'm not kidding. When measuring the ability of a QB...using SB #'s alone is short sighted at best. It should be an after thought because so much goes into winning a SB.

Now when talking about a QBs HoF status..."greatness"...yeah they will always use SBs and overall passing yards. And in my opinion that should only be part of the equation. But who am I? It's done the way it's done...but I believe a QBs QB rating is the best way to measure his ability if forced to choose one stat. It certainly wouldn't be SB rings.
I agree people shouldn't look at SB wins alone...otherwise, that means Terry Bradshaw was just as good as Joe Montana. However, I don't think Superbowls should be discarded as an "afterthought" either. History clearly shows that quarterback play is a vital part of a Superbowl formula, perhaps the biggest part. Even teams with good running games and good defenses throughout history haven't won without good play from the QB. Heck, even Trent Dilfer managed an 80+ rating in the playoffs for the 2000 Ravens.

So in summation no, they're not the only thing, but SB wins are still important. Me, I like to judge a QB based off the whole package - quality stats (that doesn't include yards), wins, and leadership. :Cheers

Shawn
02-01-2010, 12:21 PM
Torch I think we see this the same way. I agree SBs should be looked at but it can't be the sole measure for greatness. Passing yards and total TDs are also only part of the equation. I really like lifetime QB rating...playoff QB rating myself. But even those don't tell the whole story.

Jom112
02-01-2010, 12:21 PM
No, I am saying that Ben has been a BETTER PLAYOFF QB THAN MANNING by any measure.

Did you miss this:
In eight post season losses, Manningís offense averaged just 13 points per game. As to how many points his offense scored in each loss, here is the list: 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, 18, 24, 17. Now ask yourself a question. Was his defense really the problem? Even in two playoff losses to the Patriots and Jaguars, Roethlisbergerís offense was able to put 29 and 27 points, respectively, on the scoreboard.

Bens LEAST POINT total in a playoff loss is not zero like Peyton, not 3 like another occasion but 27.
Ben has NEVER been as bad in a playoff loss as Peyton routinely is.


You can't just look at the final score and say Ben NEVER has been as bad in a playoff loss:

Ben's playoff losses:
Jags - 3 INT's, 1 Fumble
Patriots - 3 INT's, 1 Fumble

Peyton's playoff losses (NFL.com didn't provide game logs for his first 2 losses):

Chargers - 0 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Chargers - 2 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Steelers - 0 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Patriots - 1 INT's, 1 Fumble
Patriots - 4 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Jets - 2 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Dolphins - 0 INT's
Tennessee - 0 INT's

Peyton had 10 turnovers in 8 playoff losses. While Ben had 8 turnovers in 2 playoff losses...

ikestops85
02-01-2010, 03:05 PM
No, I am saying that Ben has been a BETTER PLAYOFF QB THAN MANNING by any measure.

Did you miss this:
In eight post season losses, Manningís offense averaged just 13 points per game. As to how many points his offense scored in each loss, here is the list: 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, 18, 24, 17. Now ask yourself a question. Was his defense really the problem? Even in two playoff losses to the Patriots and Jaguars, Roethlisbergerís offense was able to put 29 and 27 points, respectively, on the scoreboard.

Bens LEAST POINT total in a playoff loss is not zero like Peyton, not 3 like another occasion but 27.
Ben has NEVER been as bad in a playoff loss as Peyton routinely is.


You can't just look at the final score and say Ben NEVER has been as bad in a playoff loss:

Ben's playoff losses:
Jags - 3 INT's, 1 Fumble
Patriots - 3 INT's, 1 Fumble

Peyton's playoff losses (NFL.com didn't provide game logs for his first 2 losses):

Chargers - 0 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Chargers - 2 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Steelers - 0 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Patriots - 1 INT's, 1 Fumble
Patriots - 4 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Jets - 2 INT's, 0 Fumbles
Dolphins - 0 INT's
Tennessee - 0 INT's

Peyton had 10 turnovers in 8 playoff losses. While Ben had 8 turnovers in 2 playoff losses...

I don't think you can just look at turnovers either to tell whether the QB had a good or bad game. In the loss to the steelers Peyton had a bad game but no official turnovers (although I know of one interception which was ruled incomplete :lol: ) Ben has certainly had bad playoff games. Both games as a rookie were bad his first SB was bad. In the Jax game Ben had a bad 1st half and a great 2nd half.

I think the point some are trying to make is Peyton, over the course of his career, tends not to put up the numbers in big games that he does in regular games. I personally think that was true earlier in his career but he is getting better. He still isn't close to Brady as a "clutch" QB in my opinion and I don't think he is as good as Ben in those situations. JMHO

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 03:17 PM
why would i make excuses for a player i hate?
you need hooked on phonics.
and I still argue that ben has had as much talent as peyton on the offensive side of the ball. sorry.
with faneca and hartings our o line was as good as if nto better than manning.
with plax/ward we were as good as wayne/harrison (that's a little bit of homer in me).
manning played one season with Faulk, so i really wouldn't list him as the "talent" surrounding manning.
you note how many points we scored in the first two playoff games for ben, how many points did ben give them though on pick 6's?

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-01-2010, 03:41 PM
I think the whole premise to the intial post ? is a little lame, typical of MSM and his blinded-by-stats ilk. "Give me Roethlisberger over Manning ..." - under what conditions, on what team?

Manning needs conditions just so, like some kind of hot house flower, or he just folds. Look at a certain 2005 playoff game for an example of this. You put Manning on any of the Steeler teams Ben has done well on, and within 2 or 3 games he winds up looking like Captain Pike.

http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200303/tos-016-the-badly-injured-pike/320x240.jpg

So, maybe choose Manning on one of his greenhouse, climate-controlled teams, but definitely not in the 'burgh, or any other outdoor NE venue, or on a team without awesome protection.

It's kind of like asking - what's better, a daquiri with a little umbrella in the glass, or a space suit? Depends where you are ...

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 03:44 PM
I think the whole premise to the intial post ? is a little lame, typical of MSM and his blinded-by-stats ilk. "Give me Roethlisberger over Manning ..." - under what conditions, on what team?

Manning needs conditions just so, like some kind of hot house flower, or he just folds. Look at a certain 2005 playoff game for an example of this. You put Manning on any of the Steeler teams Ben has done well on, and within 2 or 3 games he winds up looking like Captain Pike.

http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200303/tos-016-the-badly-injured-pike/320x240.jpg

So, maybe choose Manning on one of his greenhouse, climate-controlled teams, but definitely not in the 'burgh, or any other outdoor NE venue, or on a team without awesome protection.

It's kind of like asking - what's better, a daquiri with a little umbrella in the glass, or a space suit? Depends where you are ...
or instead, maybe our offensive line looks like a group of all pro's, our Pro-bowl TE suddenly catches 70 balls a year and we dominate all year only to lose in the playoffs.
with an occassional super bowl appearance.

steelblood
02-01-2010, 04:05 PM
I really hate these sorts of conversations. I know they are a staple of message boards, but what is wrong with just appreciating them for what they are. Comparing these two is like comparing artists or musicians. Logical discussions based on stats are really difficult given all the variables. It always ends up in a pissing match.

The best I can do is appreciate them for who they are.

Peyton is an amazing student of the game and a master technician who wins because he can diagnose defenses quickly and exploit their weaknesses. Chess master/Field General.

Ben is a freakish athlete and a great improvisor, who uses every ounce of his being to claw to victory. Gunslinger.

Even my descriptions are oversimplifications at best.

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 04:08 PM
I really hate these sorts of conversations. I know they are a staple of message boards, but what is wrong with just appreciating them for what they are. Comparing these two is like comparing artists or musicians. Logical discussions based on stats are really difficult given all the variables. It always ends up in a pissing match.

The best I can do is appreciate them for who they are.

Peyton is an amazing student of the game and a master technician who wins because he can diagnose defenses quickly and exploit their weaknesses. Chess master/Field General.

Ben is a freakish athlete and a great improvisor, who uses every ounce of his being to claw to victory. Gunslinger.

Even my descriptions are oversimplifications at best.
yea that's true. I love having ben as a steeler. I just think there are things he needs to work on. ei, becoming a field general and a student of the game at peytons level.
I just don't see what peyton can do to get better.

cruzer8
02-01-2010, 04:21 PM
I think the whole premise to the intial post ? is a little lame, typical of MSM and his blinded-by-stats ilk. "Give me Roethlisberger over Manning ..." - under what conditions, on what team?

Manning needs conditions just so, like some kind of hot house flower, or he just folds. Look at a certain 2005 playoff game for an example of this. You put Manning on any of the Steeler teams Ben has done well on, and within 2 or 3 games he winds up looking like Captain Pike.

http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200303/tos-016-the-badly-injured-pike/320x240.jpg

So, maybe choose Manning on one of his greenhouse, climate-controlled teams, but definitely not in the 'burgh, or any other outdoor NE venue, or on a team without awesome protection.

It's kind of like asking - what's better, a daquiri with a little umbrella in the glass, or a space suit? Depends where you are ...
or instead, maybe our offensive line looks like a group of all pro's, our Pro-bowl TE suddenly catches 70 balls a year and we dominate all year only to lose in the playoffs.
with an occassional super bowl appearance.

It's pretty clear you expect perfection out of Ben while overlooking Peyton's flaws.

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 04:27 PM
perfection? hell i get giddy every time i see soemone other than stewart under center. do i expect ben to grow as a play, hell yea. do i expect him to stop holding the ball and taking sacks? yep. do i expect him to make a pre snap read to identify the blitzing corner on 3rd and 1 against the cleveland brown at least once? you bet.
Peyton has flaws. he can't "make things happen" instead he throws the ball away. he doesn't stand in the face of pressure, but that's why he doesnt take more than 25 sacks in a season. He's a selfish player. and I hate that about him. but there's a reason why he will go down as the best qb ever to play the game. and there's a reason he one 4 NFL MVP's.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-01-2010, 04:32 PM
I really hate these sorts of conversations. I know they are a staple of message boards, but what is wrong with just appreciating them for what they are. Comparing these two is like comparing artists or musicians. Logical discussions based on stats are really difficult given all the variables. It always ends up in a pissing match.

The best I can do is appreciate them for who they are.

Peyton is an amazing student of the game and a master technician who wins because he can diagnose defenses quickly and exploit their weaknesses. Chess master/Field General.

Ben is a freakish athlete and a great improvisor, who uses every ounce of his being to claw to victory. Gunslinger.

Even my descriptions are oversimplifications at best.

Pretty much what I was trying to say, thanks.

cruzer8
02-01-2010, 04:33 PM
perfection? hell i get giddy every time i see soemone other than stewart under center. do i expect ben to grow as a play, hell yea. do i expect him to stop holding the ball and taking sacks? yep. do i expect him to make a pre snap read to identify the blitzing corner on 3rd and 1 against the cleveland brown at least once? you bet.
Peyton has flaws. he can't "make things happen" instead he throws the ball away. he doesn't stand in the face of pressure, but that's why he doesnt take more than 25 sacks in a season. He's a selfish player. and I hate that about him. but there's a reason why he will go down as the best qb ever to play the game. and there's a reason he one 4 NFL MVP's.

There's also a reason despite being surrounded by all that offensive fire power that he's just going after his second ring now.

I just *love* his 8-8 post season record. It's quite impressive!

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 04:37 PM
perfection? hell i get giddy every time i see soemone other than stewart under center. do i expect ben to grow as a play, hell yea. do i expect him to stop holding the ball and taking sacks? yep. do i expect him to make a pre snap read to identify the blitzing corner on 3rd and 1 against the cleveland brown at least once? you bet.
Peyton has flaws. he can't "make things happen" instead he throws the ball away. he doesn't stand in the face of pressure, but that's why he doesnt take more than 25 sacks in a season. He's a selfish player. and I hate that about him. but there's a reason why he will go down as the best qb ever to play the game. and there's a reason he one 4 NFL MVP's.

There's also a reason despite being surrounded by all that offensive fire power that he's just going after his second ring now.

I just *love* his 8-8 post season record. It's quite impressive!
hey at least he gets there every season.

SteelAbility
02-01-2010, 04:42 PM
it's all about the situation. if ben was in INDY he would have a ton of stats but no superbowls. there isn't any balance to that team. If peyton were here he would have more superbowls but i thnk he'd still have a ton of stats.. Pittsburgh is a much more balanced TEAM both offensively and defensively. give peyton manning a top 5 defense every year and i gaurantee that he has more rings. and honestly I don't think manning has such a good offensive line. I think they look really good because he makes the fastest reads in the NFL and can get teh ball out before there is any pressure. ben would still take 50 sacks in INDY because he'd look for the big play instead of taking the underneath stuff that manning takes.

Hey moron, can you prove that?

"if's" are for children...children play the "if" games, adults don't.

Gotta love morons. Without them, how would we be entertained?
dur dur dur
way to make a coherent arguement.
opinions are like a$$holes every one has one. you must be mine.

Well, PSU didn't exactly have the best presentation. But his point is valid. "Would" or "would have" arguments are generally considered weak as they begin to rely on the subjective and speculation.

SteelAbility
02-01-2010, 04:45 PM
So far the data indicates that UNDER PRESSURE Ben has a higher winning percentage than Manning. I'll take the performance under pressure any day. Manning can have his regular season king award as far as I'm concerned.

Ben 2 SBs in 6 tries.
Manning 1 SB in 11 tries. Maybe 2 in 12. But there's a game left to be played.

SteelAbility
02-01-2010, 04:48 PM
perfection? hell i get giddy every time i see soemone other than stewart under center. do i expect ben to grow as a play, hell yea. do i expect him to stop holding the ball and taking sacks? yep. do i expect him to make a pre snap read to identify the blitzing corner on 3rd and 1 against the cleveland brown at least once? you bet.
Peyton has flaws. he can't "make things happen" instead he throws the ball away. he doesn't stand in the face of pressure, but that's why he doesnt take more than 25 sacks in a season. He's a selfish player. and I hate that about him. but there's a reason why he will go down as the best qb ever to play the game. and there's a reason he one 4 NFL MVP's.

There's also a reason despite being surrounded by all that offensive fire power that he's just going after his second ring now.

I just *love* his 8-8 post season record. It's quite impressive!
hey at least he gets there every season.

Ben was one Burnett brain-fart away from getting to the post-season this year. In 06 he had a frikkin' concussion and an emergency apendectomy for goodness' sake. Even then we were a 1st and goal from the 1 conversion to TD agains the Raiders away from making the post-season. Ben's post-season misses have been very narrow and handicapped by either sickness/injury or just poor support from the team.

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 05:01 PM
perfection? hell i get giddy every time i see soemone other than stewart under center. do i expect ben to grow as a play, hell yea. do i expect him to stop holding the ball and taking sacks? yep. do i expect him to make a pre snap read to identify the blitzing corner on 3rd and 1 against the cleveland brown at least once? you bet.
Peyton has flaws. he can't "make things happen" instead he throws the ball away. he doesn't stand in the face of pressure, but that's why he doesnt take more than 25 sacks in a season. He's a selfish player. and I hate that about him. but there's a reason why he will go down as the best qb ever to play the game. and there's a reason he one 4 NFL MVP's.

There's also a reason despite being surrounded by all that offensive fire power that he's just going after his second ring now.

I just *love* his 8-8 post season record. It's quite impressive!
hey at least he gets there every season.

Ben was one Burnett brain-fart away from getting to the post-season this year. In 06 he had a frikkin' concussion and an emergency apendectomy for goodness' sake. Even then we were a 1st and goal from the 1 conversion to TD agains the Raiders away from making the post-season. Ben's post-season misses have been very narrow and handicapped by either sickness/injury or just poor support from the team.
and peyton was 1 brain fart away from being undefeated. now as PSU and Steel ability like to appoint, don't play what ifs.
peyton was also one narrow fingertip tackle away from sending the steelers home and taking the colts tot he super bowl.
and steelability
i wont play what if any more, I'll deal in facts. Peyton Manning is IN FACT going to go down in history as the BEST QB EVER TO PLAY THE GAME. he is IN FACT a 4 time NFL MVP. he IN FACT has not had a top 9 defense EVERY YEAR he's played the game. he is IN FACT the least sacked qb in the league nearly every season. he has IN FACT only missed the play offs twice in 10+ years.

the fact that he's selfish and not surrounded by as great of a team as Ben is doesn't mean he's not a great qb. but even crappy qb's can win with poor defenses (trent dilfer anyone?).

frankthetank1
02-01-2010, 05:30 PM
this debate is a lot like comparing elway and marino. they are both elite qb's with very different styles of play with very different offense's. there isnt any qb i would rather have then ben though. he handles pressure better than any qb i have ever seen with the exception of elway. manning is one of the worst qb's under pressure

BURGH86STEEL
02-01-2010, 05:39 PM
this debate is a lot like comparing elway and marino. they are both elite qb's with very different styles of play with very different offense's. there isnt any qb i would rather have then ben though. he handles pressure better than any qb i have ever seen with the exception of elway. manning is one of the worst qb's under pressure

Manning does have his share of 4th quarter come backs. Both are great players. I just think Manning is better. He throws a better ball, reads defenses better, makes quicker decisions, and is all ready considered an all time great.

Ben has some work to do to catch up. I believe that Ben has the talent but I am not sure if Ben is willing to put the time and work in necessary to reach that level. Only time will tell.

birtikidis
02-01-2010, 05:40 PM
this debate is a lot like comparing elway and marino. they are both elite qb's with very different styles of play with very different offense's. there isnt any qb i would rather have then ben though. he handles pressure better than any qb i have ever seen with the exception of elway. manning is one of the worst qb's under pressure

Manning does have his share of 4th quarter come backs. Both are great players. I just think Manning is better. He throws a better ball, reads defenses better, makes quicker decisions, and is all ready considered an all time great.

Ben has some work to do to catch up. I believe that Ben has the talent but I am not sure if Ben is willing to put the time and work in necessary to reach that level. Only time will tell.
that's what i'm saying vern

frankthetank1
02-01-2010, 05:58 PM
this debate is a lot like comparing elway and marino. they are both elite qb's with very different styles of play with very different offense's. there isnt any qb i would rather have then ben though. he handles pressure better than any qb i have ever seen with the exception of elway. manning is one of the worst qb's under pressure

Manning does have his share of 4th quarter come backs. Both are great players. I just think Manning is better. He throws a better ball, reads defenses better, makes quicker decisions, and is all ready considered an all time great.

Ben has some work to do to catch up. I believe that Ben has the talent but I am not sure if Ben is willing to put the time and work in necessary to reach that level. Only time will tell.

i didnt mean pressure as in 4th qtr comebacks i was referring to being blitzed and having defenders in his face. i saw manning take a dive i think it was the first drive by the colts in the jets game. it was pathetic, but manning is by far the smartest qb's i have ever seen and you know he works harder than any player in the nfl

Shawn
02-01-2010, 06:06 PM
perfection? hell i get giddy every time i see soemone other than stewart under center. do i expect ben to grow as a play, hell yea. do i expect him to stop holding the ball and taking sacks? yep. do i expect him to make a pre snap read to identify the blitzing corner on 3rd and 1 against the cleveland brown at least once? you bet.
Peyton has flaws. he can't "make things happen" instead he throws the ball away. he doesn't stand in the face of pressure, but that's why he doesnt take more than 25 sacks in a season. He's a selfish player. and I hate that about him. but there's a reason why he will go down as the best qb ever to play the game. and there's a reason he one 4 NFL MVP's.

I really don't want Ben to change any part of his game except for checking down to the running back more. Allow Mendenhall to make more plays in space...the guy is hard to bring down with a head of steam...his hands are underrated.

Ben is Ben...don't clip his wings...you have to take the good with the bad. Trying to turn Ben into Manning would be a mistake. It's why you don't see me complain about the sacks. I know alot of it's Ben...but that's why he has serious ypp...and why he can make the plays he does...no one does what he does better. I wouldn't trade him for anyone.

SteelAbility
02-01-2010, 06:24 PM
perfection? hell i get giddy every time i see soemone other than stewart under center. do i expect ben to grow as a play, hell yea. do i expect him to stop holding the ball and taking sacks? yep. do i expect him to make a pre snap read to identify the blitzing corner on 3rd and 1 against the cleveland brown at least once? you bet.
Peyton has flaws. he can't "make things happen" instead he throws the ball away. he doesn't stand in the face of pressure, but that's why he doesnt take more than 25 sacks in a season. He's a selfish player. and I hate that about him. but there's a reason why he will go down as the best qb ever to play the game. and there's a reason he one 4 NFL MVP's.

There's also a reason despite being surrounded by all that offensive fire power that he's just going after his second ring now.

I just *love* his 8-8 post season record. It's quite impressive!
hey at least he gets there every season.

Ben was one Burnett brain-fart away from getting to the post-season this year. In 06 he had a frikkin' concussion and an emergency apendectomy for goodness' sake. Even then we were a 1st and goal from the 1 conversion to TD agains the Raiders away from making the post-season. Ben's post-season misses have been very narrow and handicapped by either sickness/injury or just poor support from the team.
and peyton was 1 brain fart away from being undefeated. now as PSU and Steel ability like to appoint, don't play what ifs.
peyton was also one narrow fingertip tackle away from sending the steelers home and taking the colts tot he super bowl.
and steelability
i wont play what if any more, I'll deal in facts. Peyton Manning is IN FACT going to go down in history as the BEST QB EVER TO PLAY THE GAME. he is IN FACT a 4 time NFL MVP. he IN FACT has not had a top 9 defense EVERY YEAR he's played the game. he is IN FACT the least sacked qb in the league nearly every season. he has IN FACT only missed the play offs twice in 10+ years.

the fact that he's selfish and not surrounded by as great of a team as Ben is doesn't mean he's not a great qb. but even crappy qb's can win with poor defenses (trent dilfer anyone?).

Correct me if I'm wrong but that finger tip tackle was Ben bailing out sloppy play by his overly confident running back. And somehow that's an argument in Peyton's favor?? Nice slight of hand there slick!! I haven't seen anything out of Manning to indicate he can make that play. Ben on the other hand ... DID IT. Furthermore, if Harper scores on that play, the Steelers still had another shot with about 1 minute to play and 2 or 3 timeouts. I wonder if we've seen Ben do that sometime in his career?

Speculation. Bradshaw and Montana each have four rings, the only QBs with four rings. I believe the consensus right now is Montana. Manning is going to have to get four at a minimum to overcome Montana.

After the rules were changed/altered/contorted to fit his style of play. That's like a labeling a boxer dominant when you force his opponents to have one had tied to their side every third round or so. :roll:

Manning has had far better receivers than Ben.

BURGH86STEEL
02-01-2010, 08:44 PM
this debate is a lot like comparing elway and marino. they are both elite qb's with very different styles of play with very different offense's. there isnt any qb i would rather have then ben though. he handles pressure better than any qb i have ever seen with the exception of elway. manning is one of the worst qb's under pressure

Manning does have his share of 4th quarter come backs. Both are great players. I just think Manning is better. He throws a better ball, reads defenses better, makes quicker decisions, and is all ready considered an all time great.

Ben has some work to do to catch up. I believe that Ben has the talent but I am not sure if Ben is willing to put the time and work in necessary to reach that level. Only time will tell.

i didnt mean pressure as in 4th qtr comebacks i was referring to being blitzed and having defenders in his face. i saw manning take a dive i think it was the first drive by the colts in the jets game. it was pathetic, but manning is by far the smartest qb's i have ever seen and you know he works harder than any player in the nfl

Yeah Manning took a dive a couple of times in that game. I think I would had took a dive in that situation. Live to play another play. It appeared the rusher was coming at him hard and fast. Would you suggest he take a hit to prove he is a tough guy? It would not had served the Colts or Manning no purpose. They would had loss that game without Manning.

On the flip side, I've seen times when Ben panicked under pressure. There are times that all QB's have their good and bad moments under the influence of the pass rush.

I would take either player on my team. Both have proven to be winners.

williar
02-01-2010, 11:24 PM
Please!!! Stop this "Ben over Manning" non-sense. Even Stevie Wonder is would be wise enough to know better than that... Anyone who is foolish enough to continue to mention Ben and Manning in the same skill-set, breath is just beyond homerism-delusional.. You could watch one game of the two QB's and realize who is the polished, intelligent, well trained/studied qb artist vs. the erratic, playground-winging- make-it-up as you go, sack me artist.

Shawn
02-01-2010, 11:34 PM
Please!!! Stop this "Ben over Manning" non-sense. Even Stevie Wonder is would be wise enough to know better than that... Anyone who is foolish enough to continue to mention Ben and Manning in the same skill-set, breath is just beyond homerism-delusional.. You could watch one game of the two QB's and realize who is the polished, intelligent, well trained/studied qb artist vs. the erratic, playground-winging- make-it-up as you go, sack me artist.

ru a colts fan?

williar
02-01-2010, 11:47 PM
Please!!! Stop this "Ben over Manning" non-sense. Even Stevie Wonder is would be wise enough to know better than that... Anyone who is foolish enough to continue to mention Ben and Manning in the same skill-set, breath is just beyond homerism-delusional.. You could watch one game of the two QB's and realize who is the polished, intelligent, well trained/studied qb artist vs. the erratic, playground-winging- make-it-up as you go, sack me artist.

ru a colts fan?

I'm a die-hard Steelers fan, however I am rooting for the colts in the superbowl. I respect Peyton Manning because it is evident that he is a top notch professional and ultimate team leader who works diligently on his craft.

birtikidis
02-02-2010, 12:13 AM
Number of rings doesn't make you the best. or is trent dilfer better than dan marino?
who cares that rules were changed. deal with. you want to deal in reality, there it is, don't whine about it.

Jom112
02-02-2010, 12:14 AM
DW: Just one. I donít believe he could have won a Super Bowl behind the current offensive line of the Steelers.


The Colts current offensive line:

LT Charlie Johnson - 6th round pick
LG Ryan Lilja - Undrafted
C Jeff Saturday - Undrafted (Great center but is 34 years old now)
RG Kyle DeVan - Undrafted
RT Ryan Diem - 4th Round pick

I actually think the Steelers O-Line last season is better the Colts O-Line this year.

Also Ben's O-Line when he won the SB in 2005:

Marvel Smith - 2nd round pick
Alan Faneca - 1st round pick
Jeff Hartings - 1st round pick
Kendall Simmons - 1st round pick
Max Starks - 3rd round pick



DW: Edgerrin James rushed for more than 1,500 yards four times throughout his time with Manning and the Colts. Roethlisberger has never had a 1,500-yard running back.


Edgerrin James wasn't on the team when they won the SB.

Also the rankings for the rushing offenses since both QB's took over:

Steelers: 2, 5, 10, 3, 23, 19
Colts: 26, 19, 16, 7, 26, 19, 15, 16, 18, 18, 31, 32



MB: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Peyton Manning or Ben.

DW: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Jeff Hartwig or Jeff Saturday?


The O-Line is a unit. NFL coaches I think would rather have the Steelers current O-Line to the Colts current O-Line.



DW: Also note that Nate Washington averaged 16 yards per reception with Roethlisberger as his quarterback. The averaged fell to twelve per reception this season with the Tennessee Titans. Again, Roethlisberger makes wide receivers.


Nate Washington's ypc fell to 12 but he also doubled his TD production. Also Nate Washington was facing #3 CB's with the Steelers but facing #1 and #2 CB's with the Titans...

birtikidis
02-02-2010, 12:20 AM
schooled by a BENGALS fan, how embarrasing, how embarassing

Shawn
02-02-2010, 12:23 AM
schooled by a BENGALS fan, how embarrasing, how embarassing

I don't think anyone can be considered "schooled" unless they have a chance to rebut points.

Jom112
02-02-2010, 12:26 AM
schooled by a BENGALS fan, how embarrasing, how embarassing

I don't think any can be considered "schooled" unless they have a chance to rebut points.

I agree with Shawn, you can't really school someone who can't comment back. When I used to debate with MSM he did have good comebacks stats wise for stuff I threw at him.

My reasoning for throwing the stats out now is because he intentionally leaves things out to favor Ben. Like when asked to compare the Steelers and Colts running games. He talks about Edge's personal numbers but leaves out how effective the Steelers running game was early in Ben's career. That one was too easy not to rebuke...

birtikidis
02-02-2010, 12:29 AM
fine, see if i ever throw props your way again jom.
how rude!
lol

Shawn
02-02-2010, 12:32 AM
schooled by a BENGALS fan, how embarrasing, how embarassing

I don't think any can be considered "schooled" unless they have a chance to rebut points.

I agree with Shawn, you can't really school someone who can't comment back. When I used to debate with MSM he did have good comebacks stats wise for stuff I threw at him.

My reasoning for throwing the stats out now is because he intentionally leaves things out to favor Ben. Like when asked to compare the Steelers and Colts running games. He talks about Edge's personal numbers but leaves out how effective the Steelers running game was early in Ben's career. That one was too easy not to rebuke...

Me personally...I believe this is a legit debate and I base it on career QB ratings and playoff QB ratings. I think little else has significant value because of the variables and the subjectivity. Manning is elite at what he does...Ben is elite at what he does. I would personally rather have Ben and I think that is reasonable when you look at the Steelers system.

birtikidis
02-02-2010, 12:35 AM
I don't look at qb rating. that has to be the most misleading stat in the game of football.
and no, i don't want ben to be like peyton
I love what ben brings to the team. but I would like him to improve in a bunch of areas in particular, not taking sacks, taking the dump off and his pre snap reads. those are his only deficencies that i see.

stlrz d
02-02-2010, 12:35 AM
this debate is a lot like comparing elway and marino. they are both elite qb's with very different styles of play with very different offense's. there isnt any qb i would rather have then ben though. he handles pressure better than any qb i have ever seen with the exception of elway. manning is one of the worst qb's under pressure

Manning does have his share of 4th quarter come backs. Both are great players. I just think Manning is better. He throws a better ball, reads defenses better, makes quicker decisions, and is all ready considered an all time great.

Ben has some work to do to catch up. I believe that Ben has the talent but I am not sure if Ben is willing to put the time and work in necessary to reach that level. Only time will tell.

When did you spend so much time with him to come to this conclusion?



Please!!! Stop this "Ben over Manning" non-sense. Even Stevie Wonder is would be wise enough to know better than that... Anyone who is foolish enough to continue to mention Ben and Manning in the same skill-set, breath is just beyond homerism-delusional.. You could watch one game of the two QB's and realize who is the polished, intelligent, well trained/studied qb artist vs. the erratic, playground-winging- make-it-up as you go, sack me artist.

ru a colts fan?

Does the name "teeceemadison" ring a bell? :lol:

Shawn
02-02-2010, 12:38 AM
this debate is a lot like comparing elway and marino. they are both elite qb's with very different styles of play with very different offense's. there isnt any qb i would rather have then ben though. he handles pressure better than any qb i have ever seen with the exception of elway. manning is one of the worst qb's under pressure

Manning does have his share of 4th quarter come backs. Both are great players. I just think Manning is better. He throws a better ball, reads defenses better, makes quicker decisions, and is all ready considered an all time great.

Ben has some work to do to catch up. I believe that Ben has the talent but I am not sure if Ben is willing to put the time and work in necessary to reach that level. Only time will tell.

When did you spend so much time with him to come to this conclusion?



Please!!! Stop this "Ben over Manning" non-sense. Even Stevie Wonder is would be wise enough to know better than that... Anyone who is foolish enough to continue to mention Ben and Manning in the same skill-set, breath is just beyond homerism-delusional.. You could watch one game of the two QB's and realize who is the polished, intelligent, well trained/studied qb artist vs. the erratic, playground-winging- make-it-up as you go, sack me artist.

ru a colts fan?

Does the name "teeceemadison" ring a bell? :lol:

Figures...I knew that style seemed irritatingly familiar. :x :lol:

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-02-2010, 12:39 AM
schooled by a BENGALS fan, how embarrasing, how embarassing

I don't think any can be considered "schooled" unless they have a chance to rebut points.

I agree with Shawn, you can't really school someone who can't comment back. When I used to debate with MSM he did have good comebacks stats wise for stuff I threw at him.

My reasoning for throwing the stats out now is because he intentionally leaves things out to favor Ben. Like when asked to compare the Steelers and Colts running games. He talks about Edge's personal numbers but leaves out how effective the Steelers running game was early in Ben's career. That one was too easy not to rebuke...

Me personally...I believe this is a legit debate and I base it on career QB ratings and playoff QB ratings. I think little else has significant value because of the variables and the subjectivity. Manning is elite at what he does...Ben is elite at what he does. I would personally rather have Ben and I think that is reasonable when you look at the Steelers system.

That's the rebuttal? :Bow

I think schooled was the word! "Edgerrin James..." :lol:

Shawn
02-02-2010, 12:42 AM
No San that wasn't the rebuttal because MSM wrote the post. That's my view not a rebuttal because they were not my points.

Slapstick
02-02-2010, 12:44 AM
Ben is all football player...

Manning would have never made the tackle that saved the game vs. the Colts in the 2005 divisional playoffs...

There is no doubt that Manning is like a Play-Station QB come to life, but Ben is 100% football player...that is what works for the Steelers...

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-02-2010, 12:45 AM
No San that wasn't the rebuttal because MSM wrote the post. That's my view not a rebuttal because they were not my points.

Sorry, I forgot you were posting for him, my bad!

stlrz d
02-02-2010, 12:45 AM
this debate is a lot like comparing elway and marino. they are both elite qb's with very different styles of play with very different offense's. there isnt any qb i would rather have then ben though. he handles pressure better than any qb i have ever seen with the exception of elway. manning is one of the worst qb's under pressure

Manning does have his share of 4th quarter come backs. Both are great players. I just think Manning is better. He throws a better ball, reads defenses better, makes quicker decisions, and is all ready considered an all time great.

Ben has some work to do to catch up. I believe that Ben has the talent but I am not sure if Ben is willing to put the time and work in necessary to reach that level. Only time will tell.

When did you spend so much time with him to come to this conclusion?



Please!!! Stop this "Ben over Manning" non-sense. Even Stevie Wonder is would be wise enough to know better than that... Anyone who is foolish enough to continue to mention Ben and Manning in the same skill-set, breath is just beyond homerism-delusional.. You could watch one game of the two QB's and realize who is the polished, intelligent, well trained/studied qb artist vs. the erratic, playground-winging- make-it-up as you go, sack me artist.

ru a colts fan?

Does the name "teeceemadison" ring a bell? :lol:

Figures...I knew that style seemed irritatingly familiar. :x :lol:

Now you know...and knowing is half the battle! :lol:

Yup...same dude...same MO....

Shawn
02-02-2010, 12:46 AM
Ben is all football player...

Manning would have never made the tackle that saved the game vs. the Colts in the 2005 divisional playoffs...

There is no doubt that Manning is like a Play-Station QB come to life, but Ben is 100% football player...that is what works for the Steelers...

Well said...

Shawn
02-02-2010, 12:50 AM
No San that wasn't the rebuttal because MSM wrote the post. That's my view not a rebuttal because they were not my points.

Sorry, I forgot you were posting for him, my bad!

No problem San.

Shawn
02-02-2010, 02:31 AM
Aight Jom here is Dutch's response...





Shawn wrote:
DW: Just one. I donít believe he could have won a Super Bowl behind the current offensive line of the Steelers.



The Colts current offensive line:

LT Charlie Johnson - 6th round pick
LG Ryan Lilja - Undrafted
C Jeff Saturday - Undrafted (Great center but is 34 years old now)
RG Kyle DeVan - Undrafted
RT Ryan Diem - 4th Round pick

I actually think the Steelers O-Line last season is better the Colts O-Line this year.


Steelers were ranked 25th worst in rushing offense in Goal to go situations last year.
colts are ranked 5th best this year.

This year, the Steelers are ranked dead last in the NFL (tied with Detroit) with only 3 carries for 10+ yards or more up the middle. The colts are in the top 10 with 13 carries.

This year the Steelers are 26th ranked Redzone rushing offense.
This year the Colts are ranked 6th best in Redzone Rushing offense.

Roethlisberger had a 25% TD Percentage in the Redzone
Manning has a 21.5% TD percentage in the Redzone












Shawn wrote:
DW: Edgerrin James rushed for more than 1,500 yards four times throughout his time with Manning and the Colts. Roethlisberger has never had a 1,500-yard running back.


Edgerrin James wasn't on the team when they won the SB.


That's because Ben outplayed Peyton in 2005. Otherwise he would have been.


Also the rankings for the rushing offenses since both QB's took over:

Steelers: 2, 5, 10, 3, 23, 19
Colts: 26, 19, 16, 7, 26, 19, 15, 16, 18, 18, 31, 32


Peyton continues to throw the football up two scores with 5 mins left. Cowher runs runs runs after Ben provides a double digit lead. That's how you end up those rankings. Never ever use those rankings again if your are trying to make a point. This is embarassing. Please raise your level of game here. You can do better than that.
Shawn wrote:
MB: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Peyton Manning or Ben.


DW: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Jeff Hartwig or Jeff Saturday?



The O-Line is a unit. NFL coaches I think would rather have the Steelers current O-Line to the Colts current O-Line.


Did you see how Starks got taken apart by Clay Mathews? Did you watch how poorly Colon played against the Browns? Every game, at least one Steeler offensive lineman have some sort of breakdown which kills the "unit." I think it was 2004 when the Steelers went 10 games without a hold. This line can't go ten minutes without screwing something up. The only reason you don't know about the Colts lineman is that all the media ever talks about is Peyton manning.

Shawn wrote:
DW: Also note that Nate Washington averaged 16 yards per reception with Roethlisberger as his quarterback. The averaged fell to twelve per reception this season with the Tennessee Titans. Again, Roethlisberger makes wide receivers.



Nate Washington's ypc fell to 12 but he also doubled his TD production. Also Nate Washington was facing #3 CB's with the Steelers but facing #1 and #2 CB's with the Titans...


Maybe Vince Young makes Wide receivers??

Seriously though, 5 of Nates 6 TD catches came in the redzone. He als had a 11
receptions in the RZ. Last year, He only had 1 catch in the RZ and 0 TD catches.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember Nate being out there in the Red zone offense much with the Steelers. He certainly wasn't a target in the redzone like he is with the Titans. Steelers would look for Miller, Ward, or Holmes first.

birtikidis
02-02-2010, 02:43 AM
Jom 1
MSM 0

frankthetank1
02-02-2010, 08:37 AM
this debate is a lot like comparing elway and marino. they are both elite qb's with very different styles of play with very different offense's. there isnt any qb i would rather have then ben though. he handles pressure better than any qb i have ever seen with the exception of elway. manning is one of the worst qb's under pressure

Manning does have his share of 4th quarter come backs. Both are great players. I just think Manning is better. He throws a better ball, reads defenses better, makes quicker decisions, and is all ready considered an all time great.

Ben has some work to do to catch up. I believe that Ben has the talent but I am not sure if Ben is willing to put the time and work in necessary to reach that level. Only time will tell.

i didnt mean pressure as in 4th qtr comebacks i was referring to being blitzed and having defenders in his face. i saw manning take a dive i think it was the first drive by the colts in the jets game. it was pathetic, but manning is by far the smartest qb's i have ever seen and you know he works harder than any player in the nfl

Yeah Manning took a dive a couple of times in that game. I think I would had took a dive in that situation. Live to play another play. It appeared the rusher was coming at him hard and fast. Would you suggest he take a hit to prove he is a tough guy? It would not had served the Colts or Manning no purpose. They would had loss that game without Manning.

On the flip side, I've seen times when Ben panicked under pressure. There are times that all QB's have their good and bad moments under the influence of the pass rush.

I would take either player on my team. Both have proven to be winners.

the play i was talking about manning easily could of used his feet and gotten out of the pocket. thats what he should of done. it was easily two seconds before a jet touched him after he flopped on the ground. he is a football player. he should act as such

RuthlessBurgher
02-02-2010, 11:28 AM
Ben is all football player...

Manning would have never made the tackle that saved the game vs. the Colts in the 2005 divisional playoffs...

There is no doubt that Manning is like a Play-Station QB come to life, but Ben is 100% football player...that is what works for the Steelers...

I don't think Pittsburgh would trade Ben for Peyton, Brady, or Brees. Ben fits with what Pittsburgh does.

I don't think Indy would trade Peyton for Ben, Brady, or Brees. Peyton fits with what Indy does.

I don't think New England would trade Brady for Peyton, Ben, or Brees. Brady fits with what New England does.

I don't think New Orleans would trade Brees for Peyton, Brady, or Ben. Brees fits with what New Orleans does.

They are all good in their own way in their own systems.

ikestops85
02-02-2010, 11:49 AM
I actually think the Steelers O-Line last season is better the Colts O-Line this year.

Sorry Jom but no way in hell does ANYBODY take the 2008 Steeler offensive line over the Colts offensive line. That steeler line was, well, offensive. The only reason they won the SB was because of Ben and an awesome D. Manning would have been broken in half playing behind that line.

I do agree that the line the Steelers put on the field in 2005 was great and a main reason we went all the way that year.

Jom112
02-02-2010, 01:09 PM
Aight Jom here is Dutch's response...

Steelers were ranked 25th worst in rushing offense in Goal to go situations last year.
colts are ranked 5th best this year.

This year, the Steelers are ranked dead last in the NFL (tied with Detroit) with only 3 carries for 10+ yards or more up the middle. The colts are in the top 10 with 13 carries.

This year the Steelers are 26th ranked Redzone rushing offense.
This year the Colts are ranked 6th best in Redzone Rushing offense.

Roethlisberger had a 25% TD Percentage in the Redzone
Manning has a 21.5% TD percentage in the Redzone


Gotta love how MSM diggs through every stat he can to find some that favors Ben and only posts those. I can assume that rushes to the outside favor the Colts so he just posts the rushes up the middle.

I don't have access to the same stats that Dutch does so to counter I will just throw his favorite stat back at him tweaked a bit: YPA - http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Ar ... g_YPA.html (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_992_Passing_YPA.html)



That's because Ben outplayed Peyton in 2005. Otherwise he would have been.

Also the rankings for the rushing offenses since both QB's took over:

Steelers: 2, 5, 10, 3, 23, 19
Colts: 26, 19, 16, 7, 26, 19, 15, 16, 18, 18, 31, 32

Peyton continues to throw the football up two scores with 5 mins left. Cowher runs runs runs after Ben provides a double digit lead. That's how you end up those rankings. Never ever use those rankings again if your are trying to make a point. This is embarassing. Please raise your level of game here. You can do better than that.


Ben outplayed Peyton in 2005? No mention of facing the Steelers Defense opposed to facing the Colts Defense in that game. If your thinking about throwing out some stats to show the Colts D in 2005 was comparable to the Steelers D in 2005, just stop now because that is not worth responding to.

Well if he doesn't like rushing rankings how about yards per carry?

Colts: 3.5, 3.4, 3.8, 4.0, 3.7, 4.3
Steelers: 4.2, 3.7, 4.2, 4.2, 4.0, 4.0

That's from 2009 to 2004. Only once did the Steelers have a worst YPC than the Colts since Ben started. And that was Ben's rookie season where I'm sure defenses loaded the box to stop the run. Anyone else find it funny that I have "prove" that the Colts rushing game isn't as good as the Steelers rushing game since 2004?

BTW, you can tell MSM is getting frustrated by that last line he wrote. :lol:



Did you see how Starks got taken apart by Clay Mathews? Did you watch how poorly Colon played against the Browns? Every game, at least one Steeler offensive lineman have some sort of breakdown which kills the "unit." I think it was 2004 when the Steelers went 10 games without a hold. This line can't go ten minutes without screwing something up. The only reason you don't know about the Colts lineman is that all the media ever talks about is Peyton manning.


Starks played very well in the postseason run last year. I remember because I made fun of you guys for tagging Starks before the season and JTS (BTW, where has he been?) reminded me of it when Starks took over at LT and started playing well. This season he wasn't as good at LT but definitely better than Johnson/Ugoh. So what if he got beat by Clay Mathews, who didn't in the 2nd half of the season?

I would take Starks and Colon over Charlie Johnson and Ryan Diem as Tackles any day. Only reason Johnson is even starting is because Tony Ugoh was horrible at LT and got benched.



Shawn wrote:
DW: Also note that Nate Washington averaged 16 yards per reception with Roethlisberger as his quarterback. The averaged fell to twelve per reception this season with the Tennessee Titans. Again, Roethlisberger makes wide receivers.

Nate Washington's ypc fell to 12 but he also doubled his TD production. Also Nate Washington was facing #3 CB's with the Steelers but facing #1 and #2 CB's with the Titans...

Maybe Vince Young makes Wide receivers??

Seriously though, 5 of Nates 6 TD catches came in the redzone. He als had a 11
receptions in the RZ. Last year, He only had 1 catch in the RZ and 0 TD catches.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember Nate being out there in the Red zone offense much with the Steelers. He certainly wasn't a target in the redzone like he is with the Titans. Steelers would look for Miller, Ward, or Holmes first.

Steelers would look for Miller, Ward or Holmes first or Ben would look for them first in the RZ? Considering Nate's height advantage over Hines and Holmes maybe he should have looked for Nate more in the RZ. He's proving in Tennessee that he can be a RZ threat (And that he can still drop good passes)...

JTP53609
02-02-2010, 04:03 PM
i love ben, i think he is a hall of famer and I would not trade him for anyone....but when all said and done, manning is the best of all time, his decision making is amazing, his Oline is much better than ours, but even so, he has taken no names at receiver and made them look good, same with ben, but mannings numbers are going to be the best of all time, and he will get his second super bowl this week, 2 super bowls along with his numbers make him the best of all time...and i think he may get another title too, but so will ben

Shawn
02-02-2010, 06:49 PM
i love ben, i think he is a hall of famer and I would not trade him for anyone....but when all said and done, manning is the best of all time, his decision making is amazing, his Oline is much better than ours, but even so, he has taken no names at receiver and made them look good, same with ben, but mannings numbers are going to be the best of all time, and he will get his second super bowl this week, 2 super bowls along with his numbers make him the best of all time...and i think he may get another title too, but so will ben

Only numbers Manning will beat Ben in are numbers associated with passing attempts. Manning passes alot more...so his numbers will be higher. Ben proved against the Packers he can take a game on his back and throw for 500 yards. He had one pass to win the game...money pass. Ben is elite and will never get his due because of the system he passes in.

eniparadoxgma
02-02-2010, 10:25 PM
Dutch asked me to post this...and soooo the fun begins. :lol:

Give me Roethlisberger over Peyton Manning
It is undoubtedly a very small group that would take Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger to lead their team instead of Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts. But even if you do fall into that select group, there is a good chance that you wonít admit it.

After all, admitting such a thing publicly would only invite ridicule. If you live in southwestern Pennsylvania, as I do, you would be considered a homer to state such an opinion. Your credibility would immediately be attacked. You could be chastised, mocked, publicly humiliated, and perhaps even spat upon for considering such argument.

Yet, through it all, the facts are clearly on your side. The following is a question-and-answer exchange I recently had with a Manning backer on this subject. Enjoy!

Manning Backer: You only want to talk about Ben having more rings up to this point. That doesnít tell the whole story. Ben having more rings has nothing to do with him being better than Manning. Canít you see this?

Dutch Wydo: Roethlisberger has one more Super Bowl victory up to this point because he out-performed Manning at Indianapolis in the 2005 playoffs. Roethlisberger came out throwing and put two early touchdowns on the board and staked his team to what turned out to be an insurmountable 14-point lead. That was the difference in the game and the reason why Ben has one more ring up to this point.

MB: Ok, How many rings do you think Manning would have if he was the quarterback of the Steelers this decade?

DW: Just one. I donít believe he could have won a Super Bowl behind the current offensive line of the Steelers.

MB: Cmon! Donít you see that Ben has been in a better situation in Pittsburgh?

DW: Incorrect. Roethlisberger won a Super Bowl with an undrafted free agent at running back. He was throwing to guys like Cedric Wilson and Antwaan Randle El. He even had a rookie Tight End starting on that Ď05 team. This is hardly Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark.

MB: Iím sorry, but you need to consider everything. Just look at the stats. What do the stats tell you?

DW: Iím sorry, but maybe you have not considered everything. What if Roethlisberger had played his home games in a dome? Ben has played seven indoor games and boasts a passer rating of 113. He has 14 TD passes against only five interceptions. Roethlisberger has completed 68% of his throws indoors at a majestic 9.4 yards per attempt. Unfortunately, he is stuck playing at Heinz Field and has to endure mud, rain, snow, and wind, along with a revolving set of receivers throughout most of his career. Yeah, great situation! Now, let me ask you a question. If you take both quarterbacks and have to choose one to play a road game, which one would you take?

MB: I think the answer is obvious. Iím taking Manning, as he is superior.

DW: Really? What evidence do you have to support that? Roethlisberger has a 91.6 career road passer rating. Manning has a 91.6 career road passer rating. Your perception that Manning is so superior simply does not equal reality, my friend.

MB: You just donít get it do you? Ben has had a great running game in place for most of his career.

DW: Edgerrin James rushed for more than 1,500 yards four times throughout his time with Manning and the Colts. Roethlisberger has never had a 1,500-yard running back.

MB: Defense, Defense, Defense, Dutch. Peyton would have won at least three Super Bowls with that Steeler defense. Címon! Canít you see this?

DW: In eight post season losses, Manningís offense averaged just 13 points per game. As to how many points his offense scored in each loss, here is the list: 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, 18, 24, 17. Now ask yourself a question. Was his defense really the problem? Even in two playoff losses to the Patriots and Jaguars, Roethlisbergerís offense was able to put 29 and 27 points, respectively, on the scoreboard.

MB: So you are trying to say that Ben is the reason they won their playoff games?

DW: Roethlisberger has the highest postseason third-down passer rating of 121.5 last five years. Should I credit bad word LeBeau for that? Besides, before this postseason started, Roethlisberger had a better passer rating, more yards per attempt, and a higher completion percentage in the postseason than Manning. You clearly underrate Roethlisberger.

MB: Are you trying to say the Colts defense has been better than the Steelers defense?

DW: No. But Indianapolisí defense has been the beneficiary of 210 turnovers since 2003. The Steelers defense has collected 190. The Colts are 16-3 over last three seasons when their defense gets two turnovers. The Steelers are 10-4. Getting defensive turnovers can be quite helpful to a quarterback as they will get short fields to work with and convert them into quick scores. This year, the New Orleans Saints averaged 11 points per game off turnovers. The Steelers cornerbacks didnít have an interception until the final week of the regular season. In fact, the Steelers offense this season projected to score 23.8 points per game based on yards and turnover differential. A lack of defensive turnovers and consistently poor special teams held back a Steeler offense averaging 6.2 yards per play more than anything else.

MB: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Peyton Manning or Ben.

DW: Go ask NFL coaches who they would rather have, Jeff Hartwig or Jeff Saturday?

MB: Dutch, look at how Pierre Garcon has played at Wide Receiver this season for the Colts. Donít you see that is because of Peyton Manning? Peyton Manning makes wide receivers.

DW: Considering the success that Steelers receiver Mike Wallace had this year, the success that Heath Miller had as a rookie, not to mention the performance Santonio Holmes had the last half of 2006. I guess that means Roethlisberger makes wide receivers, too. Also note that Nate Washington averaged 16 yards per reception with Roethlisberger as his quarterback. The averaged fell to twelve per reception this season with the Tennessee Titans. Again, Roethlisberger makes wide receivers.

MB: I think most would agree that Manning is perhaps the greatest quarterback of all time.

DW: To be the best of all time, then you would have to project to be the best in previous generations. Considering that Manningís offense is built around great timing with his receivers, Iím not convinced he would have able to achieve so much success, say, in the 1970s when his receivers would have had their heads taken off and he was forced to scramble around and make plays. That is not his game. In fact, it wasnít until Colts General Manager Bill Polian convinced the NFL in 2004 to strictly enforce the five-yard chuck rule so that his boy could get through the playoffs. Roethlisberger is great right now and would have been great in the 1960s or 1970s.

MB: Look at how Manning attacked the Jets backup cornerback when they lost their starting corner to injury. Manning is a student of the game.

DW: Of course. Manning is the only quarterback in the NFL that has the wisdom to immediately go after a back up corner who just came into the game. Heís a genius.

MB: Who do you like in the Super Bowl?

DW: Colts 38-24. It's all about Manning!

Something is not right here. One of the things that used to make me laugh was Wydo's intent to write a book. The reason I found it so funny was that he had a somewhat poor grasp of grammar and spelling, and always seemed to screw up the proper use of "their", "they're", and "there". His writing was also disjointed at times, with very little flow. It was something he admitted and said he would rely on editing to correct.

I never thought that Wydo was a stupid man, but I find it difficult to believe that he has improved his writing this much. However, I will say that the article has some unmistakable Dutchisms. There are plenty of stats, mention of the average per attempt stat, and it was quite heavy on the man-love for Ben. I'm not sure what's going on here, but something doesn't seem right with this.

By the way Shawn, what's going on with you singing MSM's praises in one thread and now delivering messages supposedly written by him in this one?

Just askin'.

You have a good eye but I wouldn't read too much into it. I am not here for douchebaggery...and claiming Dutch wrote something I wrote would be exactly that. Dutch became a large resource for my board. We came to a mutual respect for one another. We email each other quite a bit and discuss boards and football.

I never asked Dutch directly how his writing improved so drastically but it's obvious that it has. You do know he writes for the Herald now? I have links to most of his articles. So, he either took some classes or has help of some sort. His writing and radio show got Ben's agents attention...Ben listened to his show...read some of his articles and granted him an interview. Have you heard the interview? It's on Dutch's site. I think you will be surprised.

As for why I posted his post...well because he asked me to. I emailed him asking him to come back over...he said he has been banned and his ip banned so unless John decides to let him back...he won't be. So, if he isn't unbanned you will probably see a few articles posted for discussion.

I know some of you don't want him back. I know some of you don't like the guy. And unless he could come back without drama it won't happen.


lmao

Sounds like a little bromance brewing over there Shawn bwahahaha

Granted, I haven't read the rest of this thread however I will probably end up replying multiple times through eye-stinging laughter by the time it's done.

He's banned from the board for a reason, so why are you parroting Captain Mongoloid's tripe here? He asked you? What the hell is that about? You'd think if we wanted a bunch of his crap strewn all over the board he probably wouldn't be banned, no?

As it is now, you're the leader of a fan club for a douchebag that used to post here but is banned. Keep his crap on your board.

Of course, that's just my opinion. :)

eniparadoxgma
02-02-2010, 10:30 PM
Well it seems that this thread has led into a healthy football discussion. I guess that's allowed. :lol:

My previous post stands.

SteelTorch
02-02-2010, 10:49 PM
I don't look at qb rating. that has to be the most misleading stat in the game of football.
and no, i don't want ben to be like peyton
I love what ben brings to the team. but I would like him to improve in a bunch of areas in particular, not taking sacks, taking the dump off and his pre snap reads. those are his only deficencies that i see.
Actually, QB rating has the second-highest correlation with winning than any other QB stat out there. YPA (adjusted for sacks) is the first. Tough to argue with mathematical fact. :wink:

SteelTorch
02-02-2010, 10:52 PM
Shawn, even though I too participated, I must ask that you refrain from posting any more of Dutch's articles or threads.

The guy may be smart, and he may post good football at times, but he is a douchebag, and he was banned from the board for that very reason. He cannot carry on a civilized debate with anyone he disagrees with.

Please do not let him worm his way back into our community by posting his stuff here. Kindly keep it somewhere else. Thanks. :wink:

Shawn
02-02-2010, 11:21 PM
Well it seems that this thread has led into a healthy football discussion. I guess that's allowed. :lol:

My previous post stands.

Bromance...lol. Nah...just like the fact that guys like you were wrong. I am posting articles from the Herald...written by a reporter who happens to be the guy you busted on for his "little radio station" and "living in mommy's basement". So, after the new job as a sports reporter, and interviewing Ben and Whisenhunt on his "little radio show" I personally found it satisfying. I don't blame you for not wanting to read his articles. I wouldn't want to be reminded daily of my ignorance either.

It's aight though bro...I'm sure you can philosophize something up to make yourself feel better. ;)

And I will continue to post articles by Steeler reporters unless instructed not to do so by the owner of the site. Thanks though.

Flasteel
02-02-2010, 11:21 PM
lmao

Sounds like a little bromance brewing over there Shawn bwahahaha

Granted, I haven't read the rest of this thread however I will probably end up replying multiple times through eye-stinging laughter by the time it's done.

He's banned from the board for a reason, so why are you parroting Captain Mongoloid's tripe here? He asked you? What the hell is that about? You'd think if we wanted a bunch of his crap strewn all over the board he probably wouldn't be banned, no?

As it is now, you're the leader of a fan club for a douchebag that used to post here but is banned. Keep his crap on your board.

Of course, that's just my opinion. :)


Bwaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is priceless offseason entertainment and Douche Weirdo isn't even here.

...well, technically not. :lol:

Flasteel
02-02-2010, 11:25 PM
Well it seems that this thread has led into a healthy football discussion. I guess that's allowed. :lol:

My previous post stands.

Bromance...lol. Nah...just like the fact that guys like you were wrong. I am posting articles from the Herald...written by a reporter who happens to be the guy you busted on for his "little radio station" and "living in mommy's basement". So, after the new job as a sports reporter, and interviewing Ben and Whisenhunt on his "little radio show" I personally found it satisfying. I don't blame you for not wanting to read his articles. I wouldn't want to be reminded daily of my ignorance either.

It's aight though bro...I'm sure you can philosophize something up to make you feel better. ;)

And I will continue to post articles by Steeler reporters unless instructed not to do so by the owner of the site. Thanks though.

Link??!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Shawn
02-02-2010, 11:26 PM
Shawn, even though I too participated, I must ask that you refrain from posting any more of Dutch's articles or threads.

The guy may be smart, and he may post good football at times, but he is a douchebag, and he was banned from the board for that very reason. He cannot carry on a civilized debate with anyone he disagrees with.

Please do not let him worm his way back into our community by posting his stuff here. Kindly keep it somewhere else. Thanks. :wink:

Torch...what is with the Dutch hate...he is a reporter...reporting about the Steelers. This was an article posted in the Herald. Here is the link if you don't believe me. So, why wouldn't you want to read articles from the Herald?

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_deta ... mpton.html (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1636/2010/february/02/are-steelers-being-fair-with-hampton.html)

Now if you guys don't want me responding to defend his articles with his words I can understand that. The guy is banned. But, to say I can't post public articles written in the local paper because Dutch wrote it is over the top.

Shawn
02-02-2010, 11:27 PM
Well it seems that this thread has led into a healthy football discussion. I guess that's allowed. :lol:

My previous post stands.

Bromance...lol. Nah...just like the fact that guys like you were wrong. I am posting articles from the Herald...written by a reporter who happens to be the guy you busted on for his "little radio station" and "living in mommy's basement". So, after the new job as a sports reporter, and interviewing Ben and Whisenhunt on his "little radio show" I personally found it satisfying. I don't blame you for not wanting to read his articles. I wouldn't want to be reminded daily of my ignorance either.

It's aight though bro...I'm sure you can philosophize something up to make you feel better. ;)

And I will continue to post articles by Steeler reporters unless instructed not to do so by the owner of the site. Thanks though.

Link??!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_deta ... mpton.html (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1636/2010/february/02/are-steelers-being-fair-with-hampton.html)

steelblood
02-03-2010, 12:03 AM
Why do many mocks in poster's sigs have no sixth round pick? Did we trade away our sixth round pick this season?

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2010, 12:07 AM
You really want to bring that douche's douchieness over here on a site he was banned from, eh?

For the record, I'd rather P H I L O S O P H I Z E than be an errand boy for a Cro-Magnon.

Let's do this then.




Bromance...lol. Nah...just like the fact that guys like you were wrong.

Bromance, yeah. That's what I call being the mouth piece (perhaps in more ways than one eh :wink: ) for someone on a site that he is currently banned from. You've been over hear spouting his praises as if he was the personification of Zeus reincarnated since you got here. Get off your knees and speak for yourself, k?



I am posting articles from the Herald...written by a reporter who happens to be the guy you busted on for his "little radio station" and "living in mommy's basement". So, after the new job as a sports reporter, and interviewing Ben and Whisenhunt on his "little radio show" I personally found it satisfying.

Do you really think I give any type of crap, I really mean ANY type of crap about what the hell he's doing? Am I running around on other websites parroting his floundering verbiage? I don't bring the douche up unless it's to make fun of him because He. Is. A. Retard. Period. I couldn't give two shakes of a rat's ass if he starts working for ESPN except for the fact that I'll have to stop watching Sportscenter in order to escape that Howdy Doody lookin visage.

And you personally find it satisfying? Dude, I'm sorry but that's just gay. "My butt-buddy is doing cool stuff so now I can go and talk smack about it to people that don't like him". One word for that...and it's GAY :lol: .




I don't blame you for not wanting to read his articles. I wouldn't want to be reminded daily of my ignorance either.

Really? bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

My ignorance? You deign to speak down to your better, pillow biter? I was never wrong about anything concerning that freak show. I stand by every statement I have ever made about him, and have yet to be proven wrong. He's a douche and you're apparently now his parrot and mop-up boy. :wink: Have fun with that.


It's aight though bro...I'm sure you can philosophize something up to make yourself feel better. ;)

Oh no, here comes the dreaded "crack on me getting a degree in philosophy". lmao Dude you couldn't bother me if you had a nuclear warhead strapped to your back and you were singing Lady Gaga while wearing a Dutch- wait I mean Howdy Doody mask, k?

Do you even know what philosophy is? I will extend the exact same invite to you that I did him back in the day when you wanted to bring up philosophy in some sort of derogatory light: You want to talk about it? You want to debate about it? Let's do it, but let's not do it here. This part of the board is for the Steelers. It's not for people so devoid of anything in their own life that they must run around typing crap for other people (if he indeed, falls under the category of "people").



And I will continue to post articles by Steeler reporters unless instructed not to do so by the owner of the site. Thanks though.

I doubt it will take long. Perhaps I'll get banned. Dunno man.

So, in summation to your laughable post:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4933/1255397665517.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/i/1255397665517.jpg/)

P.S. Does this mean we're not going to have that beer now? :D
P.P.S./P.S.S. Don't forget to bring up my stance on religion to bust on me? It works really well lol.







Disclaimer: I in no way attempting to belittle or poke fun at homosexuality or the mentally retarded. I am using terminology for my own ends.

Flasteel
02-03-2010, 12:08 AM
Well it seems that this thread has led into a healthy football discussion. I guess that's allowed. :lol:

My previous post stands.

Bromance...lol. Nah...just like the fact that guys like you were wrong. I am posting articles from the Herald...written by a reporter who happens to be the guy you busted on for his "little radio station" and "living in mommy's basement". So, after the new job as a sports reporter, and interviewing Ben and Whisenhunt on his "little radio show" I personally found it satisfying. I don't blame you for not wanting to read his articles. I wouldn't want to be reminded daily of my ignorance either.

It's aight though bro...I'm sure you can philosophize something up to make you feel better. ;)

And I will continue to post articles by Steeler reporters unless instructed not to do so by the owner of the site. Thanks though.

Link??!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_deta ... mpton.html (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1636/2010/february/02/are-steelers-being-fair-with-hampton.html)

Hmmm...that "article" didn't mention Peyton Manning once. As a matter of fact, Wydo was actually [and shockingly] able to write more than 200 words without mentioning the words "Ben" or "Roethlisberger". Seems to me that you are posting far more than "articles from the Herald".

Maybe you were just sending me a link to see that he is published by a legitimate newspaper in Union Town.

That's cool and good for Wydo.

I really like the email address they gave him...oops, they made him use his radio station email...OOPS!

Yeah, this guy has really made the big-time and you're just lovin' every minute of his sweet revenge on the rest of us. :lol:

If Dutch Wydo somewhow had even semi-decent human qualities, I would give him props. I'd think that it was pretty cool for one of us to have a platform where we could write and talk about the thing that we love most. But we're not talking about that guy...we're talkin' about Smartmonies.

He deserves what he gets.

Shawn
02-03-2010, 12:24 AM
Ein...wrong board. That post violated nearly every rule of this site. I would expect more from a guy who claims to "kick academic ass". How about we stick to discussing football. Sound good?

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2010, 12:34 AM
Ein...wrong board. That post violated nearly every rule of this site. I would expect more from a guy who claims to "kick academic bad word". How about we stick to discussing football. Sound good?

Then I'll get banned. Life goes on.

I, however, will be damned if I'm going listen to your little back handed insults. You have something to say , say it straight. That's how it should be...not some little "how bout you go philosophize" or "remind you how ignorant you are" garbage. Man up. Got it?

Or, do you see the PM button? Use it if you have something (other than something football-related) to say to me and I 'll do my best to refrain from making posts like that.

However, if you continue singing the praises of that Howdy Doody lookin Cro-Magnon tranny I'm going to let you know exactly how I feel about 'em. :tt2

Shawn
02-03-2010, 12:41 AM
Well it seems that this thread has led into a healthy football discussion. I guess that's allowed. :lol:

My previous post stands.

Bromance...lol. Nah...just like the fact that guys like you were wrong. I am posting articles from the Herald...written by a reporter who happens to be the guy you busted on for his "little radio station" and "living in mommy's basement". So, after the new job as a sports reporter, and interviewing Ben and Whisenhunt on his "little radio show" I personally found it satisfying. I don't blame you for not wanting to read his articles. I wouldn't want to be reminded daily of my ignorance either.

It's aight though bro...I'm sure you can philosophize something up to make you feel better. ;)

And I will continue to post articles by Steeler reporters unless instructed not to do so by the owner of the site. Thanks though.

Link??!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_deta ... mpton.html (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1636/2010/february/02/are-steelers-being-fair-with-hampton.html)

Hmmm...that "article" didn't mention Peyton Manning once. As a matter of fact, Wydo was actually [and shockingly] able to write more than 200 words without mentioning the words "Ben" or "Roethlisberger". Seems to me that you are posting far more than "articles from the Herald".

Maybe you were just sending me a link to see that he is published by a legitimate newspaper in Union Town.

That's cool and good for Wydo.

I really like the email address they gave him...oops, they made him use his radio station email...OOPS!

Yeah, this guy has really made the big-time and you're just lovin' every minute of his sweet revenge on the rest of us. :lol:

If Dutch Wydo somewhow had even semi-decent human qualities, I would give him props. I'd think that it was pretty cool for one of us to have a platform where we could write and talk about the thing that we love most. But we're not talking about that guy...we're talkin' about Smartmonies.

He deserves what he gets.

FLA...you actually act like you have a little bit going on upstairs so your post is worthy of a real response. The Peyton Manning post was an email Dutch sent me and asked me to post just like I had said to you in a previous post. I also said...if posters here do not want me to post stuff like that...I will respect their wishes. The link was indeed to prove he is a legit reporter. Here he is again...writing about Ben.


http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_deta ... ics-1.html (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1636/2009/november/06/big-ben-confounds-critics-1.html)

And revenge is a very strong word that doesn't really match how I feel. Let me explain it. I know Dutch has had some issues on these boards. He was fine on mine and always pleasant in email. I have no idea about Dutch the real person. But, your feelings are valid...I know he came across as a know it all. I even understand not wanting to give him props because you believe him to be an ass. But, I always recognized the guy wrote posts I liked to read and debate. That's all that mattered to me. When posters here broke rules to flame him and poke him...and these same posters are still here while he is banned...well forgive me but that doesn't seem right. He broke rules and other posters broke rules...but he is the only one banned. So, yes it pleased me to know he has had some success.

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2010, 12:45 AM
FLA...you actually act like you have a little bit going on upstairs...

And that, indeed, is a fine example of why you're a bitch.

The PM is over there if you want to insult me. Don't do it in responses to other people.

Shawn
02-03-2010, 12:46 AM
Ein...wrong board. That post violated nearly every rule of this site. I would expect more from a guy who claims to "kick academic bad word". How about we stick to discussing football. Sound good?

Then I'll get banned. Life goes on.

I, however, will be damned if I'm going listen to your little back handed insults. You have something to say , say it straight. That's how it should be...not some little "how bout you go philosophize" or "remind you how ignorant you are" garbage. Man up. Got it?

Or, do you see the PM button? Use it if you have something (other than something football-related) to say to me and I 'll do my best to refrain from making posts like that.

However, if you continue singing the praises of that Howdy Doody lookin Cro-Magnon tranny I'm going to let you know exactly how I feel about 'em. :tt2

lol...man up? On a message board? :lol: Come on Ein. You are taking this stuff way too seriously. I have nothing personal to say to you...nor do I have anything against you. I could care less about your religious views or your politics. If you want to flame me...more power to you. Honestly, I just want to discuss football.

Shawn
02-03-2010, 12:48 AM
FLA...you actually act like you have a little bit going on upstairs...

And that, indeed, is a fine example of why you're a bitch.

The PM is over there if you want to insult me. Don't do it in responses to other people.

I think that was very tame compared to your response to me. How cerebral can a man be who uses the term pillow biter? It's ok bro...you didn't hurt my feelings. How about we just stick to discussing football and keep the personal ish out of our discussions?

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-03-2010, 12:49 AM
I don't see why you want to do these things that just piss people off, SMG. You've obviously gone and rubbed more than a few people on this forum the wrong with your posting style and subject matter. Even if you were wanting to post verses from the good Book itself on a forum, if it pissed a fair amount of people off why would you do that? OK, there's a legit answer to that, but Uniontown boy apologia? If people don't want to you to post certain things, but you really want to, why not find somewhere else to do it? I've seen you can be nice in the conventional sense when you want to ... why just sometimes?

It's not like you're getting a commision to spread the Uniontown gospel or anything, are you? :lol: :lol:

hawaiiansteel
02-03-2010, 12:49 AM
Updated: February 2, 2010, 10:48 PM ET
Irsay plans to break bank for Peyton

By Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com


MIAMI -- Negotiations to extend the contract of Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning will begin in earnest after the season, Colts owner Jim Irsay confirmed on Tuesday, and the new deal is expected to make the Colts' star the highest-paid player in NFL history and to keep him with the franchise for his entire career.

Manning's current deal, the final two years of which have been technically voided, will expire after the 2010 season.

"You know it's going to get done," Irsay said during media day interviews. "I think it's clear, and we'll start on it this summer. That's been the way we do things [to hammer out an extension when a player is entering the final year of his contract]. And it'll be the biggest [contract] in history; there's not much doubt about that."

Irsay has said in the past that Manning will be "a Colt for life," and he reiterated that stance on Tuesday morning.

Manning, 33, signed a contract extension for $99.2 million in 2004, and the deal included a record $34.5 million singing bonus, all of it paid up front. The final two seasons of that contract were voided because Manning met predetermined playing-time incentives, making 2010 the final year of the deal.

The Manning contract, Irsay said, "is the easy one to do, because you know it's going to have to be the highest ever." The Colts' owner noted the "harder deals" are the ones involving good, but less important players, and cited former Indianapolis starters like guard Steve McKinney and linebackers Marcus Washington and David Thornton, veterans whom the Colts could not afford to pay because of the franchise's salary structure, and were forced to sacrifice to free agency.

"It simply comes to one question, and that's replaceability," Irsay explained.

"Everything is based on the replaceability factor. You make decisions based on who you can afford to target and keep. ... Other guys you really want to [re-sign] you might have trouble doing it, because of what it costs you, and how much attention they're getting [from other teams in free agency]. We don't have that luxury and we've had to work hard."

Team president Bill Polian said during the season that the club, because it had such high-profile players, often had to determine "how fungible" some players and positions were. But Irsay, who invested about $100 million into the club after his father, Robert Irsay, died in 1997, is prepared to make Manning a very rich man. The younger Irsay, in fact, has dipped into his own wallet in the past to fund the contracts of some key players.

Ironically, the contracts of Manning and New England quarterback Tom Brady are both up after the 2010 campaign. Irsay allowed he will "watch closely" the bargaining on the Brady deal.

"We didn't have the luxury [of not having a salary cap]," Irsay said. "Without one, not having those [constraints], we would have done an incredible job."

There have been some preliminary discussions between Irsay and agent Tom Condon on the Manning deal. Condon, who represents about a dozen starting quarterbacks in the NFL, has a solid relationship with Colts management, and it is difficult to project that a new deal won't be completed.

Last year, Condon negotiated a six-year, $97.5 million contract extension for Eli Manning, with about $35 million in guarantees, that made the New York Giants' star one of the league's highest-paid performers. Depending on the methods of valuation, the highest-paid player in the league with a multiyear contract and based on average compensation per season is Cincinnati quarterback Carson Palmer, at $16.17 million per year.

Given the salary spiral, his stature in the league, and the likelihood that 2010 will be an "uncapped" season, it is not unthinkable to project that Manning could receive an extension pushing $20 million per year, and with a signing bonus of about $50 million.

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2010, 12:50 AM
And I would like to apologize for derailing the thread. Honestly it wasn't my intention.

I first responded before reading the entire thread so at the time I had no idea that it actually became a decent football-related thread. I thought it was a debate over having Howdy Doody come back or something.

Shawn
02-03-2010, 12:53 AM
I don't see why you want to do these things that just piss people off, SMG. You've obviously gone and rubbed more than a few people on this forum the wrong with your posting style and subject matter. Even if you were wanting to post verses from the good Book itself on a forum, if it pissed a fair amount of people off why would you do that? OK, there's a legit answer to that, but Uniontown boy apologia? If people don't want to you to post certain things, but you really want to, why not find somewhere else to do it? I've seen you can be nice in the conventional sense when you want to ... why just sometimes?

It's not like you're getting a commision to spread the Uniontown gospel or anything, are you? :lol: :lol:

San...it wasn't my intention to piss anyone off. I have even said I will refrain from posting any personal emails from Dutch. I do think it crosses a line to say I can't post public articles about the Steelers. But, if that's what John wishes I will respect that as well. I don't want to talk scripture, politics, debate about racism etc. I just want to talk football.

Shawn
02-03-2010, 12:54 AM
And I would like to apologize for derailing the thread. Honestly it wasn't my intention.

I first responded before reading the entire thread so at the time I had no idea that it actually became a decent football-related thread. I thought it was a debate over having Howdy Doody come back or something.

It's cool man...I really didn't mean to ruffle feathers.

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2010, 12:56 AM
lol...man up? On a message board?

Give me a break. I really don't want to have to break it down for you because in my opinion it should be obvious but on the internet as well as in face to face or even telephone communication there are standards, manners, etc.

Whether you're whispering in your wife's ear about some guy you don't like or you're putting it into a post to FLA you're making a back-handed insult that I indeed see as sackless. I am blunt and believe in the righteousness of being candid and up front.



:lol: Come on Ein. You are taking this stuff way too seriously. I have nothing personal to say to you...nor do I have anything against you. I could care less about your religious views or your politics. If you want to flame me...more power to you. Honestly, I just want to discuss football.

I'll decide what I find serious. You don't bother me at all, but I'll be damned if I let people insult me (especially in that sort of sackless way) and not respond to it...if I feel like it lol. Don't care about my religious views or politics? At least you're doing something a little bit better than your apparent mentor.

You want to discuss football? Then speak football. Speak for yourself, write for yourself, keep your insults to yourself, and keep Captain Mongoloid off this friggin site.

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2010, 01:01 AM
I think that was very tame compared to your response to me. How cerebral can a man be who uses the term pillow biter? It's ok bro...you didn't hurt my feelings. How about we just stick to discussing football and keep the personal ish out of our discussions?

I would like to make a point here. Dispute this if you can.

Using terms such as "pillow-biter", cussing, etc and being cerebral are not mutually exclusive...at all. They actually don't have much to do with one another. If you think I can't say everything I said without such terminology you'd be wrong. If you think only someone that isn't "cerebral" or whatever you're going for here wouldn't use such terminology you'd be wrong...

Don't really see the whole thing about not using some parts of the language when you find them more than satisfactory for what you are using them for...

Oh well.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-03-2010, 01:06 AM
I think that was very tame compared to your response to me. How cerebral can a man be who uses the term pillow biter? It's ok bro...you didn't hurt my feelings. How about we just stick to discussing football and keep the personal ish out of our discussions?

I would like to make a point here. Dispute this if you can.

Using terms such as "pillow-biter", cussing, etc and being cerebral are not mutually exclusive...at all. They actually don't have much to do with one another. If you think I can't say everything I said without such terminology you'd be wrong. If you think only someone that isn't "cerebral" or whatever you're going for here wouldn't use such terminology you'd be wrong...

Don't really see the whole thing about not using some parts of the language when you find them more than satisfactory for what you are using them for...

Oh well.

Except - what does "pillow biter" mean? You don't have to answer if typing it out is just not worth the fuss!

Signed -

It's dark in this cave!

Shawn
02-03-2010, 01:14 AM
I think that was very tame compared to your response to me. How cerebral can a man be who uses the term pillow biter? It's ok bro...you didn't hurt my feelings. How about we just stick to discussing football and keep the personal ish out of our discussions?

I would like to make a point here. Dispute this if you can.

Using terms such as "pillow-biter", cussing, etc and being cerebral are not mutually exclusive...at all. They actually don't have much to do with one another. If you think I can't say everything I said without such terminology you'd be wrong. If you think only someone that isn't "cerebral" or whatever you're going for here wouldn't use such terminology you'd be wrong...

Don't really see the whole thing about not using some parts of the language when you find them more than satisfactory for what you are using them for...

Oh well.

If I have to explain to you why it appears to be less than cerebral to use terms which slam those of a different sexual orientation than yourself...then I don't know what to say. I never met an intellectual who needed to use those kinds of terms to establish a point.

stlrz d
02-03-2010, 01:21 AM
I think that was very tame compared to your response to me. How cerebral can a man be who uses the term pillow biter? It's ok bro...you didn't hurt my feelings. How about we just stick to discussing football and keep the personal ish out of our discussions?

I would like to make a point here. Dispute this if you can.

Using terms such as "pillow-biter", cussing, etc and being cerebral are not mutually exclusive...at all. They actually don't have much to do with one another. If you think I can't say everything I said without such terminology you'd be wrong. If you think only someone that isn't "cerebral" or whatever you're going for here wouldn't use such terminology you'd be wrong...

Don't really see the whole thing about not using some parts of the language when you find them more than satisfactory for what you are using them for...

Oh well.

Except - what does "pillow biter" mean? You don't have to answer if typing it out is just not worth the fuss!

Signed -

It's dark in this cave!

Think doggy style...except with 2 men. :lol:

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z75/fetal_miind/UspWrn8T6FCPOqb3Y9EpTJPPhaqq.jpg

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-03-2010, 01:25 AM
I think that was very tame compared to your response to me. How cerebral can a man be who uses the term pillow biter? It's ok bro...you didn't hurt my feelings. How about we just stick to discussing football and keep the personal ish out of our discussions?

I would like to make a point here. Dispute this if you can.

Using terms such as "pillow-biter", cussing, etc and being cerebral are not mutually exclusive...at all. They actually don't have much to do with one another. If you think I can't say everything I said without such terminology you'd be wrong. If you think only someone that isn't "cerebral" or whatever you're going for here wouldn't use such terminology you'd be wrong...

Don't really see the whole thing about not using some parts of the language when you find them more than satisfactory for what you are using them for...

Oh well.

Except - what does "pillow biter" mean? You don't have to answer if typing it out is just not worth the fuss!

Signed -

It's dark in this cave!

Think doggy style...except with 2 men. :lol:

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z75/fetal_miind/UspWrn8T6FCPOqb3Y9EpTJPPhaqq.jpg

I think I'm glad you're photobucket account is expired ....

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2010, 01:25 AM
If I have to explain to you why it appears to be less than cerebral to use terms which slam those of a different sexual orientation than yourself...then I don't know what to say. I never met an intellectual who needed to use those kinds of terms to establish a point.

Well, we're still going off-topic but I'll explain.

Whether or not it "appears to be less cerebral" is irrelevant. The point is that it isn't and that the two things aren't mutually exclusive in any way, shape, or form.

Why are you saying I "needed" to use those kinds of terms? I already explained that I didn't. However, I believe the situation more than warranted it...

Or to perhaps put it more bluntly: Insults are insults whether or not they're back-handed and in posts to other people or if they're in huge pictures with blazing words.

I prefer to be blunt.

Shawn
02-03-2010, 01:36 AM
If I have to explain to you why it appears to be less than cerebral to use terms which slam those of a different sexual orientation than yourself...then I don't know what to say. I never met an intellectual who needed to use those kinds of terms to establish a point.

Well, we're still going off-topic but I'll explain.

Whether or not it "appears to be less cerebral" is irrelevant. The point is that it isn't and that the two things aren't mutually exclusive in any way, shape, or form.

Why are you saying I "needed" to use those kinds of terms? I already explained that I didn't. However, I believe the situation more than warranted it...

Or to perhaps put it more bluntly: Insults are insults whether or not they're back-handed and in posts to other people or if they're in huge pictures with blazing words.

I prefer to be blunt.

Fair enough. And as said in PM to you I will refrain from posting anything written by Dutch. I did think this was a good topic but eh life is too short to be engaging in drama over his articles. I hope we can at least finish this discussion before we put all things MSM to rest. :)

hawaiiansteel
02-03-2010, 01:59 AM
If I have to explain to you why it appears to be less than cerebral to use terms which slam those of a different sexual orientation than yourself...then I don't know what to say. I never met an intellectual who needed to use those kinds of terms to establish a point.

Well, we're still going off-topic but I'll explain.

Whether or not it "appears to be less cerebral" is irrelevant. The point is that it isn't and that the two things aren't mutually exclusive in any way, shape, or form.

Why are you saying I "needed" to use those kinds of terms? I already explained that I didn't. However, I believe the situation more than warranted it...

Or to perhaps put it more bluntly: Insults are insults whether or not they're back-handed and in posts to other people or if they're in huge pictures with blazing words.

I prefer to be blunt.

Fair enough. And as said in PM to you I will refrain from posting anything written by Dutch. I did think this was a good topic but eh life is too short to be engaging in drama over his articles. I hope we can at least finish this discussion before we put all things MSM to rest. :)


Why would you refrain from posting anything that is thought-provoking? So what if not everyone agrees, isn't that what makes for an interesting discussion board?

Shawn
02-03-2010, 02:09 AM
If I have to explain to you why it appears to be less than cerebral to use terms which slam those of a different sexual orientation than yourself...then I don't know what to say. I never met an intellectual who needed to use those kinds of terms to establish a point.

Well, we're still going off-topic but I'll explain.

Whether or not it "appears to be less cerebral" is irrelevant. The point is that it isn't and that the two things aren't mutually exclusive in any way, shape, or form.

Why are you saying I "needed" to use those kinds of terms? I already explained that I didn't. However, I believe the situation more than warranted it...

Or to perhaps put it more bluntly: Insults are insults whether or not they're back-handed and in posts to other people or if they're in huge pictures with blazing words.

I prefer to be blunt.

Fair enough. And as said in PM to you I will refrain from posting anything written by Dutch. I did think this was a good topic but eh life is too short to be engaging in drama over his articles. I hope we can at least finish this discussion before we put all things MSM to rest. :)


Why would you refrain from posting anything that is thought-provoking? So what if not everyone agrees, isn't that what makes for an interesting discussion board?

I thought so...it's the reason I posted it. But, if all it's going to bring is drama...I don't any part of it.

SteelTorch
02-03-2010, 02:37 AM
Shawn, even though I too participated, I must ask that you refrain from posting any more of Dutch's articles or threads.

The guy may be smart, and he may post good football at times, but he is a douchebag, and he was banned from the board for that very reason. He cannot carry on a civilized debate with anyone he disagrees with.

Please do not let him worm his way back into our community by posting his stuff here. Kindly keep it somewhere else. Thanks. :wink:

Torch...what is with the Dutch hate...he is a reporter...reporting about the Steelers. This was an article posted in the Herald. Here is the link if you don't believe me. So, why wouldn't you want to read articles from the Herald?

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_deta ... mpton.html (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1636/2010/february/02/are-steelers-being-fair-with-hampton.html)

Now if you guys don't want me responding to defend his articles with his words I can understand that. The guy is banned. But, to say I can't post public articles written in the local paper because Dutch wrote it is over the top.
You can post articles about the Steelers, just not ones from him. :lol: And you especially can't do it if he asks you to. THAT is a violation of board rules.

And he may be a reporter, I understand that, but he is also a jerkwad who was banned because he couldn't act civilized toward the other posters. Don't try to insult my intelligence by asking me "why I wouldn't want to read articles from the Herald." It's not the Herald, it's HIM, and we especially don't want you trying to worm your way into posting his stuff just because he writes for a newspaper. Now if you can't understand that, we can do one of two things: You can stop posting more of his stuff, or we could get the mods involved. It's your choice. :wink:


EDIT: well, it seems the situation is resolving itself. I'm glad we can all get along. :lol:

Shawn
02-03-2010, 03:20 AM
Shawn, even though I too participated, I must ask that you refrain from posting any more of Dutch's articles or threads.

The guy may be smart, and he may post good football at times, but he is a douchebag, and he was banned from the board for that very reason. He cannot carry on a civilized debate with anyone he disagrees with.

Please do not let him worm his way back into our community by posting his stuff here. Kindly keep it somewhere else. Thanks. :wink:

Torch...what is with the Dutch hate...he is a reporter...reporting about the Steelers. This was an article posted in the Herald. Here is the link if you don't believe me. So, why wouldn't you want to read articles from the Herald?

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_deta ... mpton.html (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1636/2010/february/02/are-steelers-being-fair-with-hampton.html)

Now if you guys don't want me responding to defend his articles with his words I can understand that. The guy is banned. But, to say I can't post public articles written in the local paper because Dutch wrote it is over the top.
You can post articles about the Steelers, just not ones from him. :lol: And you especially can't do it if he asks you to. THAT is a violation of board rules.

And he may be a reporter, I understand that, but he is also a jerkwad who was banned because he couldn't act civilized toward the other posters. Don't try to insult my intelligence by asking me "why I wouldn't want to read articles from the Herald." It's not the Herald, it's HIM, and we especially don't want you trying to worm your way into posting his stuff just because he writes for a newspaper. Now if you can't understand that, we can do one of two things: You can stop posting more of his stuff, or we could get the mods involved. It's your choice. :wink:


EDIT: well, it seems the situation is resolving itself. I'm glad we can all get along. :lol:

Worm my way in? Come on man...don't demonize me. This post got alot of good discussion. Thats why I posted it. I'm not the guy's agent. If a few of you don't like his articles then I won't post em. And posting his articles are not a violation of board rules. I will refrain because I don't need the headache.

Jom112
02-03-2010, 11:11 AM
I thought so...it's the reason I posted it. But, if all it's going to bring is drama...I don't any part of it.

I was enjoying it...



You can post articles about the Steelers, just not ones from him. :lol: And you especially can't do it if he asks you to. THAT is a violation of board rules.


Oh the irony of that statement, ST.... :lol:

SteelTorch
02-03-2010, 12:12 PM
I thought so...it's the reason I posted it. But, if all it's going to bring is drama...I don't any part of it.

I was enjoying it...



You can post articles about the Steelers, just not ones from him. :lol: And you especially can't do it if he asks you to. THAT is a violation of board rules.


Oh the irony of that statement, ST.... :lol:
I have no idea what you're talking about, Jom. :P

ikestops85
02-03-2010, 01:21 PM
I thought so...it's the reason I posted it. But, if all it's going to bring is drama...I don't any part of it.

I was enjoying it...



You can post articles about the Steelers, just not ones from him. :lol: And you especially can't do it if he asks you to. THAT is a violation of board rules.


Oh the irony of that statement, ST.... :lol:

Ben > Carson :moon

:lol:

Flasteel
02-03-2010, 10:48 PM
I think that was very tame compared to your response to me. How cerebral can a man be who uses the term pillow biter? It's ok bro...you didn't hurt my feelings. How about we just stick to discussing football and keep the personal ish out of our discussions?

I would like to make a point here. Dispute this if you can.

Using terms such as "pillow-biter", cussing, etc and being cerebral are not mutually exclusive...at all. They actually don't have much to do with one another. If you think I can't say everything I said without such terminology you'd be wrong. If you think only someone that isn't "cerebral" or whatever you're going for here wouldn't use such terminology you'd be wrong...

Don't really see the whole thing about not using some parts of the language when you find them more than satisfactory for what you are using them for...

Oh well.

If I have to explain to you why it appears to be less than cerebral to use terms which slam those of a different sexual orientation than yourself...then I don't know what to say. I never met an intellectual who needed to use those kinds of terms to establish a point.

I get your point SMG, but I have to agree with enigma that being cerebral and playing in the verbal gutter are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, I look at it as a balancing act. I never want to come off as too egg-headed or too stupid...so I always try to give people a little taste of both.

I understand the meaning of the term "pillow-biter" (unfortunately I do now), but not enough to know if it's an offensive slur to anyone who smokes the occasional pole. I can definitely see where it's a slam (literally, I guess) on a guy's masculinity, but you need to remember that those types of digs are inherently going to involve behaviors associated with women, boys, queers, and whimps. If a term is largely considered an inflammatory and derogatory way to refer to group of people, then you have a very valid point shawn. Just remember that not all references to homosexual or even feminine attributes should be interpreted as a negative slur. It's just the ultimate kick in the crotch for a guy to be ascribed less than manly qualities...and it's one of my favorite ways to bust my friends' balls.

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2010, 11:05 PM
I think that was very tame compared to your response to me. How cerebral can a man be who uses the term pillow biter? It's ok bro...you didn't hurt my feelings. How about we just stick to discussing football and keep the personal ish out of our discussions?

I would like to make a point here. Dispute this if you can.

Using terms such as "pillow-biter", cussing, etc and being cerebral are not mutually exclusive...at all. They actually don't have much to do with one another. If you think I can't say everything I said without such terminology you'd be wrong. If you think only someone that isn't "cerebral" or whatever you're going for here wouldn't use such terminology you'd be wrong...

Don't really see the whole thing about not using some parts of the language when you find them more than satisfactory for what you are using them for...

Oh well.

If I have to explain to you why it appears to be less than cerebral to use terms which slam those of a different sexual orientation than yourself...then I don't know what to say. I never met an intellectual who needed to use those kinds of terms to establish a point.

I get your point SMG, but I have to agree with enigma that being cerebral and playing in the verbal gutter are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, I look at it as a balancing act. I never want to come off as too egg-headed or too stupid...so I always try to give people a little taste of both.

I understand the meaning of the term "pillow-biter" (unfortunately I do now), but not enough to know if it's an offensive slur to anyone who smokes the occasional pole. I can definitely see where it's a slam (literally, I guess) on a guy's masculinity, but you need to remember that those types of digs are inherently going to involve behaviors associated with women, boys, queers, and whimps. If a term is largely considered an inflammatory and derogatory way to refer to group of people, then you have a very valid point shawn. Just remember that not all references to homosexual or even feminine attributes should be interpreted as a negative slur. It's just the ultimate kick in the crotch for a guy to be ascribed less than manly qualities...and it's one of my favorite ways to bust my friends' balls.

Wow. I actually never saw the enlarged text above.

As far as I know, SMG is married with kids and hetero. Therefore I wasn't using any derogatory terms towards people of different sexual orientation, nor did I intend to.

Just wanted to clarify that, as I hadn't even noticed it.

stlrz d
02-04-2010, 12:05 AM
I think that was very tame compared to your response to me. How cerebral can a man be who uses the term pillow biter? It's ok bro...you didn't hurt my feelings. How about we just stick to discussing football and keep the personal ish out of our discussions?

I would like to make a point here. Dispute this if you can.

Using terms such as "pillow-biter", cussing, etc and being cerebral are not mutually exclusive...at all. They actually don't have much to do with one another. If you think I can't say everything I said without such terminology you'd be wrong. If you think only someone that isn't "cerebral" or whatever you're going for here wouldn't use such terminology you'd be wrong...

Don't really see the whole thing about not using some parts of the language when you find them more than satisfactory for what you are using them for...

Oh well.

If I have to explain to you why it appears to be less than cerebral to use terms which slam those of a different sexual orientation than yourself...then I don't know what to say. I never met an intellectual who needed to use those kinds of terms to establish a point.

I get your point SMG, but I have to agree with enigma that being cerebral and playing in the verbal gutter are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, I look at it as a balancing act. I never want to come off as too egg-headed or too stupid...so I always try to give people a little taste of both.

I understand the meaning of the term "pillow-biter" (unfortunately I do now), but not enough to know if it's an offensive slur to anyone who smokes the occasional pole. I can definitely see where it's a slam (literally, I guess) on a guy's masculinity, but you need to remember that those types of digs are inherently going to involve behaviors associated with women, boys, queers, and whimps. If a term is largely considered an inflammatory and derogatory way to refer to group of people, then you have a very valid point shawn. Just remember that not all references to homosexual or even feminine attributes should be interpreted as a negative slur. It's just the ultimate kick in the crotch for a guy to be ascribed less than manly qualities...and it's one of my favorite ways to bust my friends' balls.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

NKySteeler
02-04-2010, 12:37 AM
Ahhhhh ..... Why not, I ask myself?... I know I shouldn't comment, but.....

Dutchy-poo is not a "Steelers reporter". He just simply comments and states his opinions which is no different than what many folks do on the board. There are other folks on here with a much greater knowledge (Oveido for one). He posts comments at a two-bit publication with the circulation less than that of your local community weekly flier tossed-out into the driveway over the weekends, and re-hashes the same on his small time radio show, regardless however "vaunted" reaches all of the 500 listeners within the 2-mile radius of the station unless they are on-line. He does not have the press credentials to get into anything of any relevence on property in Pgh. Thus, his rhetoric is nothing more than fodder for the weak-minded... Why do I say this?... It is because he is a pompous ass that thinks he's God's gift to the sports world when he is nothing more than a reject and a joke from Masontown Pa. ... Followers are sorta like the sheep that are easily "hearded" into whatever he wishes.... So very sad.

God, this thread has been some great cheap entertainment... Sure hope this post isn't deleted... LoL!

.... Anyway, I really don't care... Just a "drive-by" posting to stir the thought process.... LoL!

birtikidis
02-04-2010, 01:00 AM
well said NkY

Shawn
02-04-2010, 04:19 AM
Ahhhhh ..... Why not, I ask myself?... I know I shouldn't comment, but.....

Dutchy-poo is not a "Steelers reporter". He just simply comments and states his opinions which is no different than what many folks do on the board. There are other folks on here with a much greater knowledge (Oveido for one). He posts comments at a two-bit publication with the circulation less than that of your local community weekly flier tossed-out into the driveway over the weekends, and re-hashes the same on his small time radio show, regardless however "vaunted" reaches all of the 500 listeners within the 2-mile radius of the station unless they are on-line. He does not have the press credentials to get into anything of any relevence on property in Pgh. Thus, his rhetoric is nothing more than fodder for the weak-minded... Why do I say this?... It is because he is a pompous ass that thinks he's God's gift to the sports world when he is nothing more than a reject and a joke from Masontown Pa. ... Followers are sorta like the sheep that are easily "hearded" into whatever he wishes.... So very sad.

God, this thread has been some great cheap entertainment... Sure hope this post isn't deleted... LoL!

.... Anyway, I really don't care... Just a "drive-by" posting to stir the thought process.... LoL!

I have no idea about the circulation of the paper he writes for but I know he interviewed Ben and Whisenhunt on his show. It's hard for me to believe they would have done that for a radio show with a 2 mile radius...but I guess stranger things have happened. Either way I guess it doesn't matter.

Jom112
02-04-2010, 11:26 AM
I have no idea about the circulation of the paper he writes for but I know he interviewed Ben and Whisenhunt on his show. It's hard for me to believe they would have done that for a radio show with a 2 mile radius...but I guess stranger things have happened. Either way I guess it doesn't matter.

I know nothing about Dutch's setup, but there are a couple of Bengals fans that run a message board similar to his one that have gotten dozens of Bengal and ex-Bengal players on their "radio" show. Which is basically just boardcasted online. They do it weekly and somehow keep getting guests on. I see the guy just sends messages via twitter to players and they agree to come on the show.

Apparently it's easier than it seems... :lol:

Shawn
02-04-2010, 12:04 PM
Jom

That is quite possible. I don't believe Ben grants alot of local interviews so it's unusual for him. But, maybe he liked the stroking...who knows. Either way...I thought it was cool. Even when we disagree I enjoy reading his thoughts. I think if he had a better delivery and a thicker skin he would have thrived here. Guess he will either live, learn and better himself...or he will find himself banned on every Steeler site on the net.

RuthlessBurgher
02-04-2010, 02:17 PM
Jom

That is quite possible. I don't believe Ben grants alot of local interviews so it's unusual for him. But, maybe he liked the stroking...who knows. Either way...I thought it was cool. Even when we disagree I enjoy reading his thoughts. I think if he had a better delivery and a thicker skin he would have thrived here. Guess he will either live, learn and better himself...or he will find himself banned on every Steeler site on the net.

You should have specified EGO-stroking. Because I'm sure such a sentence could be misconstrued to be stroking of another variety. :shock:

Shawn
02-04-2010, 03:18 PM
Jom

That is quite possible. I don't believe Ben grants alot of local interviews so it's unusual for him. But, maybe he liked the stroking...who knows. Either way...I thought it was cool. Even when we disagree I enjoy reading his thoughts. I think if he had a better delivery and a thicker skin he would have thrived here. Guess he will either live, learn and better himself...or he will find himself banned on every Steeler site on the net.

You should have specified EGO-stroking. Because I'm sure such a sentence could be misconstrued to be stroking of another variety. :shock:

:lol:

Not that there is anything wrong with that. :D

eniparadoxgma
02-04-2010, 03:50 PM
Jom

That is quite possible. I don't believe Ben grants alot of local interviews so it's unusual for him. But, maybe he liked the stroking...who knows. Either way...I thought it was cool. Even when we disagree I enjoy reading his thoughts. I think if he had a better delivery and a thicker skin he would have thrived here. Guess he will either live, learn and better himself...or he will find himself banned on every Steeler site on the net.

You should have specified EGO-stroking. Because I'm sure such a sentence could be misconstrued to be stroking of another variety. :shock:

Beat me to it!

...

Get it?

...

Beat?

Ah forget it. :)

RuthlessBurgher
02-04-2010, 04:20 PM
Jom

That is quite possible. I don't believe Ben grants alot of local interviews so it's unusual for him. But, maybe he liked the stroking...who knows. Either way...I thought it was cool. Even when we disagree I enjoy reading his thoughts. I think if he had a better delivery and a thicker skin he would have thrived here. Guess he will either live, learn and better himself...or he will find himself banned on every Steeler site on the net.

You should have specified EGO-stroking. Because I'm sure such a sentence could be misconstrued to be stroking of another variety. :shock:

Beat me to it!

...

Get it?

...

Beat?

Ah forget it. :)

No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right

SteelTorch
02-04-2010, 05:52 PM
Jom

That is quite possible. I don't believe Ben grants alot of local interviews so it's unusual for him. But, maybe he liked the stroking...who knows. Either way...I thought it was cool. Even when we disagree I enjoy reading his thoughts. I think if he had a better delivery and a thicker skin he would have thrived here. Guess he will either live, learn and better himself...or he will find himself banned on every Steeler site on the net.

You should have specified EGO-stroking. Because I'm sure such a sentence could be misconstrued to be stroking of another variety. :shock:

:lol:

Not that there is anything wrong with that. :D
Yes, there is something VERY wrong with that. :P

feltdizz
02-04-2010, 08:22 PM
MSM brings out the flame war and he isn't even a member.

This guy needs to come back!

I'm joking... I do find it funny how much hate he generates..

RuthlessBurgher
02-04-2010, 08:29 PM
http://colorskates.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/haterade_gorilla2.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/56095738_15d318e014.jpg

:Hater