| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aafroe
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
Posts: 211
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: Sports Illustrated |
 |
|
|
In what seems like an all too prevalent theme, the SI geniuses have picked and awfully unlikely Super Bowl winner in the Panthers, who currently are 18-1 odds in Vegas to win the Super Bowl. They also ripped the Eagles in the player value rankings, putting McNabb at 6 among QBs behind players like Marc Bulger, putting Westbrook at 22 among RBs behind players like Marshall Faulk (who will not even start), putting Owens at 6 among WRs behind Reggie Wayne who is not even the number one on his team and putting LJ Smith as the number 7 TE (which is fair, but he is behind Ben Watson who does not even have one full season under his belt.)
I can not stand SI, Dr. Z and all of their "gurus" making predictions. They have no credibility at all and are merely trying to sound like they have the inside scoop by being different than all of the other predicting media outlets. They constantly slight good teams like the Eagles and Patriots and glorify mediocre teams like the Panthers and Chiefs. Their whole basis for their predictions is that they want an obscure pick to come through and they want to be able to tell the public "I told you so." the problem with this is that they never end up being correct, as they have only picked one correct Super Bowl winner in the last 10 years and just wind up losing all credibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Iggles
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 24048
Location: Brooklyn
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sorry, but McNabb behind Bulger and Owens behind Wayne shows that the SI writers know nothing. There are maybe 3 QB's better than McNabb: Manning, Culpepper, and maybe Brady. That's it.
_________________
| Kelly Link wrote: | | Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phreak
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 5466
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Iggles wrote: | | There are maybe 3 QB's better than McNabb: Manning, Culpepper, and maybe Brady. That's it. |
Are you sure your an Eagle fan?
_________________
I've been telling everybody that if you just give me a chance to put the ball in my hands, I can get the job done. - Brian Westbrook |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iggles
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 24048
Location: Brooklyn
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm an Eagles fan, but I know how to be fair. Those are the three QB's I might put ahead of McNabb. I hate it when others do it to us, so I try to be fair to them. It's like when people don't put TO in their top 5. It ticks me off, so I try not to be like that.
_________________
| Kelly Link wrote: | | Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Broad Street Bullies
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1483
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
imo, culpepper and mcnabb are on the same level. culpepper never had as good of a system as mcnabb does, which is why he never won more than 8 games in a season.
_________________
i want to be stereotyped, i want to be classified |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
senasational
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Phreak wrote: | | Iggles wrote: | | There are maybe 3 QB's better than McNabb: Manning, Culpepper, and maybe Brady. That's it. |
Are you sure your an Eagle fan? |
Definitly an Eagles fan, "maybe Brady"   . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ok go26
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 5157
Location: outside Philly
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| senasational wrote: | | Phreak wrote: | | Iggles wrote: | | There are maybe 3 QB's better than McNabb: Manning, Culpepper, and maybe Brady. That's it. |
Are you sure your an Eagle fan? |
Definitly an Eagles fan, "maybe Brady" . |
The mark of a Patriots fan... sure Brady's a great QB but he doesn't really have to do that much, in being as unhomerly as possible, I don't think I could categorize these QBs that easily, probably putting McNabb a slight step over Brady, but to put Brady unconditionally and surely over McNabb would just be stupid. I mean come on sensational, try to look at it in a neutral view at least a little?
Oh, and I'll admit that a surefire Brady over McNabb isn't nearly as stupid as Bulger over McNabb. Or Wayne over Owens (this perhaps being the worst of them all). Downplaying the Patriots, IMO, is just as bad, and as for the Panthers? I like them as the second best team in the NFC, but barring injuries to McNabb, Owens, Westbrook, Jon Runyan, Jeremiah Trotter, Lito Sheppard, and Sheldon Brown, the Panthers won't beat us again, and if they somehow do than they definitely won't get through the AFC representative in the Super Bowl. As I said I think they'll be good, but you can just as easily pick the Bengals to win the Super Bowl.
Actually, come to think of it, pick any team, and I can come up with some bullcrap, SI-esque reasons why that team will win the super bowl. Seriously. Any team, I can do it just as well as they can. Try me.
_________________
"If you've got it, flaunt it. If you don't, flaunt statistics." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ok go26
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 5157
Location: outside Philly
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ok I think ESPN just topped SI, or close to it... in their NFL preview article, none of the 4 analysts even predict the Eagles to go to the Super Bowl, oh and the consensus pick for Super Bowl Champion is the Minnesota Vikings. Yeah, not just one analyst's pick, the consensus pick.
Like I said, give me absolutely any team, and I can make just a compelling argument (or close to one) for why that team is going to win the Super Bowl.
_________________
"If you've got it, flaunt it. If you don't, flaunt statistics." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iggles
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 24048
Location: Brooklyn
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, I disagree wholeheartedly with ESPN, but we'll show em after this season.
_________________
| Kelly Link wrote: | | Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MightyMouse07
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 27306
Location: Sloville
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:10 am Post subject: Re: Sports Illustrated |
|
|
|
| aafroe wrote: | In what seems like an all too prevalent theme, the SI geniuses have picked and awfully unlikely Super Bowl winner in the Panthers, who currently are 18-1 odds in Vegas to win the Super Bowl. They also ripped the Eagles in the player value rankings, putting McNabb at 6 among QBs behind players like Marc Bulger, putting Westbrook at 22 among RBs behind players like Marshall Faulk (who will not even start), putting Owens at 6 among WRs behind Reggie Wayne who is not even the number one on his team and putting LJ Smith as the number 7 TE (which is fair, but he is behind Ben Watson who does not even have one full season under his belt.)
I can not stand SI, Dr. Z and all of their "gurus" making predictions. They have no credibility at all and are merely trying to sound like they have the inside scoop by being different than all of the other predicting media outlets. They constantly slight good teams like the Eagles and Patriots and glorify mediocre teams like the Panthers and Chiefs. Their whole basis for their predictions is that they want an obscure pick to come through and they want to be able to tell the public "I told you so." the problem with this is that they never end up being correct, as they have only picked one correct Super Bowl winner in the last 10 years and just wind up losing all credibility. |
Yea Si can never get anything rite in any sport. So the Eagles shouldn't be too worried and there is no way that TO is the sixth best reciever in the league he is definitely either number one or two with Moss they are stupid to have him behind Wayne. And McNabb is defintely top 4 behind Brady, manning, and C-Pepp.
_________________
R.I.P. Nikolas and Brian you will truly be missed.
“Anytime I step out there I give everything I got, on every single play.” - Ray Lewis |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iggles
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 24048
Location: Brooklyn
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I seriously doubt noone but Dr. Z would put Bulger and Green ahead of McNabb. SI never gets the PVRs right, but this year they are way off. I mean, JJ is nine and McNabb is 33! I think even Dallas fans would agree McNabb is better than JJ.
_________________
| Kelly Link wrote: | | Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ok go26
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 5157
Location: outside Philly
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Iggles wrote: | | I think even Dallas fans would agree McNabb is better than JJ. |
From what I've seen of Dallas fans, idk... but even for them I think comparisons like Trent Green or McNabb would be a no-brainer, and even Chiefs fans could agree to that one.
_________________
"If you've got it, flaunt it. If you don't, flaunt statistics." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shadow walker
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 11848
Location: Groton CT
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Iggles wrote: | | Sorry, but McNabb behind Bulger and Owens behind Wayne shows that the SI writers know nothing. There are maybe 3 QB's better than McNabb: Manning, Culpepper, and maybe Brady. That's it. |
but there is a reason why they are sports writers and me are you are not.
_________________
one of the great ones on this site |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ok go26
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 5157
Location: outside Philly
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| shadow walker wrote: | | Iggles wrote: | | Sorry, but McNabb behind Bulger and Owens behind Wayne shows that the SI writers know nothing. There are maybe 3 QB's better than McNabb: Manning, Culpepper, and maybe Brady. That's it. |
but there is a reason why they are sports writers and me are you are not. |
True, but it doesn't have anything to do with the amount of knowledge they have. In fact, in many cases it just has to do with the fact that they are recognizable names (probably a good reason Joe Theismann and Steve Young put in two of the votes for ESPN the Magazine's Super Bowl projections...). I mean come on shadow walker, this is an awful, awful argument... if you actually would like to explain to all of us how a backup running back is more valuable to his team than a player like Brian Westbrook, be my guest, but saying something like that does nothing for any of us. Discuss what the "analysts" say, don't just say that they are right and we're not because it's what they're getting paid to do.
_________________
"If you've got it, flaunt it. If you don't, flaunt statistics." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
L.J smith#82
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Phreak wrote: | | Iggles wrote: | | There are maybe 3 QB's better than McNabb: Manning, Culpepper, and maybe Brady. That's it. |
Are you sure your an Eagle fan? |
yer im definatly an eagles fan Mcnabb is a top 4 QB being placed at #4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
