NFL 2003 Season Divisional Playoffs Picks

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/05/2004 @ 07:10:38 PM
This is an odd article to be in a real paper.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 01:49:27 AM
Uglier than Clint Howard. That's hilarious.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 02:59:27 AM
Don't be hatin' on Clint Howard.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 11:08:25 AM
Here's an interesting thought: The Packers were the only NFL team to finish in the Top 5 in both red-zone offense (second) and red-zone defense (fifth). (packers.com)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 11:32:39 AM
Packers columnist fights back with class. Check it out!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 01/08/2004 @ 12:12:02 PM
Actually that was pretty stupid.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 12:16:39 PM
Remember the good ol' page 3 days when we had no picture of matt so he was the stand in? Good Times.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 01/08/2004 @ 12:59:02 PM
I think both articles were stupid, but in defense of the Packer writer, he needed to defend the taut dissemination brought on by the Philadelphia writer.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 01:09:38 PM
I think it's bash the Vikings week at ESPN or something like that. Over the last 3 days or so I've seen 3 Super Bowl Highlight episodes featuring the Vikings, and we all know how they ended. Just an interesting observation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 01/08/2004 @ 03:54:02 PM
The article about Green Bay was funny. The response wasn't. Philly is ten times the city Green Bay is. In fact, it isn't really that far from trying to argue Eau Claire is a better city than Philly. The historical significance of Philly alone makes it a better city than anything in Wisconsin. The fact that Green Bay lists 9 Taco Bells under ethnic foods is funny. The fact that Philly has enough selection in their restaurants to have a select few be very expensive is a "W" for Philadelphia as far as I'm concerned. The Chumura situation is funny. The fact that commute time in Philly (which, not even counting the burbs, is 27 TIMES larger than Green Bay) is less than twice as long is, again, a plus in Philadelphia's column if anything, and is not funny. That fact that poeple in the state are willing to fork over large amounts of money for nothing in return is funny. The fact that Philly has no comedy TV show set in a fictional city that is supposed to be somewhere in the area of Philadelphia is not funny.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 01/08/2004 @ 04:00:40 PM
But regardless, they were both pointless articles. One was simply a response to the other, but still pointless, and neither were really that funny.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 04:11:24 PM
The Philly writer seems to be taking pot shots at anything most people would consider about small town America. The Reggie White controversial speech has always been taken out of context, and the Chmura case is probably one of the biggest embarrasments in Wisconsin sports. On top of all this, I find it funny that the team that "doesn't deserve a professional sports franchise" holds 12 titles. That's probably the funniest thing in that article, and the writer intended it to be funny for a different reason. But the writer does say that this "hate" comes simply from winning. The fact that Philly was praying to play anyone but Green Bay is a sign that they are definitely scared to play the Packers, maybe. But when it's all said and done, I don't think the teams will have any hate for each other.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 01/08/2004 @ 05:07:33 PM
How is there any way to take his speech IN context? =) By the way they have 12 titles because they're old. They won when there was just a few other teams. They won the Super Bowl when it wasn't even called the Super Bowl and the AFL was an expansion league. Then they sucked for 30 years. Now with revenue sharing the "small town" doesn't really matter anymore and they're back to winning seasons again.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 06:36:18 PM
Well then the Yankees, Canadians, and Celtics all have the most titles in their sports because their old too. The Packers won their first three titles in 29, 30, 31, with 12 teams in the league the first two seasons and 10 in the next. They also won in 61(14 teams), 62(14), 65(14, with 9 teams in the AFL), 66(15, 9), and 67(15, 9). Also, no other team won that many during this era. All told, the Packers won 11 titles in this 40 year period, and 5 in 7 years. No team has ever come close to doing that, not during that era or any era. Yes that was a different era than the current one, but the Browns or Bears or any other team could compare to what the Packers did at that time, and some of these teams from back then are still considered among some of the best of all time. My point, the argument that the Packers won when there were only a few teams is not a good one.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - 3619 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 09:47:06 PM
Why does Philly being bigger then Green Bay make it better? Also, Tennessee will win. Also, Wisconsin wiped the floor with Indiana the other night and is going to go undefeated in the Big 10. Also, how does a team that has sold out every game for who knows how many years not deserve a team? Seriously.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 10:11:34 PM
word		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 10:22:59 PM
Going on the things they were talking about bigger = better. I don't think anyone actually thinks Green Bay should not have a team, they usually just mean no town of that size could ever get a new team. Although a small market team could have a chance if it were allowed to be owned publicly, but that's not allowed since it would be an unfair advantage to the rest of the teams in the league. What's that? Oh, the Packers ARE allowed to be publicly owned? But no one else? hmm, Imagine that. And going back to the Packer's being old comment. Other than the name of the game not changing football today and football in the 30's is a completely different game. "Modern football" refers to recent days as compared to the like the 60's. The 30's was a completely different game. As for the early 60's teams. Would it be a big deal if after the super bowl the champs played the champs of the arena league, or nfl europe? The AFL was an expansion league, no where near the NFL. Even the Viking team that made Super Bowl 4 was a team fresh off expansion, in the days pre-free agency, when it actually meant something to be an expansion team. They happened to boom in the 60's when most of the other teams were new. Not to take anything away from them, but let's put things in perspective. To answer the other question about the other sports I don't follow other sport as well but I can tell you it isn't fair to compare titles of a team that has been around 200 years with a team that has been around 20. Also those teams were around when their leagues were formed so unless that's an amazing coincidence, yes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/08/2004 @ 10:40:29 PM
This may be more of a legal question. Since the Packers were publically owned basically since conception 87 years ago, would it be possible to cut all the strings of the 100's of thousands of people who has ever owned stock in the Packers and make them a non-publically owned team? But I guess it could be one more reason to support the "team of destiny" idea. And if publically owned teams are not allowed anymore, howcome nothing has ever been said about the Packers situation? Or at least, I've never heard anything. Man, I'm bored.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 01/08/2004 @ 10:43:39 PM
Yes, the NFL could have someone buy the company. It wouldn't be any different than someone buying any company in which stock exists. They just don't make someone because no one in the NFL want's to change the status quo.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - 3619 Posts 01/09/2004 @ 12:25:14 AM
How does being a publicly owned team give the Packers an advantage? And by "Going on the things they were talking about bigger = better." I assume you were talking about the number of taverns, in which case Green Bay is better.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 01/09/2004 @ 11:25:45 AM
First of all, why don't we ever rip on the Vikings? Is it because they're not playing right now? I don't think that's the case because this whole season it's been nothing but rip rip rip on the Pack. Why take away from the winning history of the Packers just because there weren't a lot of teams in the league? The Packers were still better than those teams, and that counts for something. Also, all of these articles from Philadelphia are ridiculous! They have nothing better to write about? I don't understand. I am a Packer fan gol' darn it, and I don't need people summing me up as poor and stupid. Give me a freakin' break. The fact that they are writing articles on the fact that Green Bay is a small town (population about 100,000) is absurd. Lets concentrate on the game, shall we? Who cares that Green Bay has a lot of taverns and Taco Bell is listed under Ethnic foods? SOOOOORRRYYYY that Green Bay isn't as cultured and as big as Philadelphia. Does that really matter? Football has thrived in Green Bay, and as of recently is a place where football players want to play. (Starting with Reggie White and Brett Favre)Yea, there was a 30 year losing streak, but that could happen with any team. It won't anymore though, what with free agency and salary caps, but previously it existed. Onto another topic, the fact that Green Bay is publicly owned. People say it's unfair and it would be stupid to own stock. Well, the Packers are an old team and back then they were allowed to make it a publicly owned company. That's one of the perks of being an older team. Deal with it. Also, I would love to own a stock or two of the Packers. They're like $200 a piece, but that's not really a lot of money for the prestige of owning an NFL team. That amount of money isn't that substantial, even now when we're in college. Just think of it as a lovely piece of art on the wall, with a little more to it. Also, no individual or company will be able to buy up enough stock to become a majority owner, as no one is allowed to own more than 200,000 shares. I'm sure I'll get ripped on for my thoughts, but that seems to be the theme of the week. Peace and GO PACK, I believe!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/09/2004 @ 12:20:19 PM
I just figured it out. The Philly writer said nothing of the team, only the city. So who cares which city is better, he couldn't come up with any reason why the Eagles are a better team than the Packers, so he made like the guy in desperate need of a come-back but comes up really lame and decided to trash the city from which the team came. (its a "Yeah, well, ummmm......your town sucks, so there" kind of a thing.) Go Pack.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - many posts 01/09/2004 @ 12:48:15 PM
First of all Sarah, it's the theme of the year not the week. But, that being said, I'm not going to rip on your argument. I will throw my two cents in though. The way I read it, the article in the Philly paper was largely just for laughs. He would've made fun of whatever team the Eagles were playing. I think we all know that Green Bay and Philly both have lame things about them and both have some good things about them. It's really a non-issue. It was in a Philly paper, written to Philly fans. Also, I don't hold it against the Packers for winning championships a long time ago. They won. Good for them. Public ownership? Big deal. Show me how this has any bearing on my life at all. All it means is that instead of fans complaining about their crappy owner, they can complain about their crappy board of directors. As far as I'm concerned it's a good thing for everyone. It's one less eccentric billionaire pulling the strings. And I have nothing against eccentric billionaires in principle, but, I mean, have you looked at some of the things owners do to their teams?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 01/09/2004 @ 04:36:47 PM
"And I have nothing against eccentric billionaires in principle, but, I mean, have you looked at some of the things owners do to their teams?" That's one of the advantages. If one guy is in charge emotions come into play. Another is that a large group of people have more money than one guy. Another is that an owner is spending his (or her) money that's way in different attitude than spending someone elses money.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - 3619 Posts 01/09/2004 @ 05:19:26 PM
The only one of those points that is valid is the emotions. For this season the salary cap was $75 million and the minimum team salary was $63 million. Football isn't like baseball where the Brewers pay their players with rolls of pennies (like, maybe five or so) and the Yankees get paid in gold bullion (five or so bricks - a day).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - 3619 Posts 01/09/2004 @ 05:20:42 PM
ps If I never hear the name "Pete Rose" again, I will die a happy man.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 01/09/2004 @ 06:02:15 PM
If the only thing that mattered was making enough money to cover the salary cap then you wouldn't have every team in the league complaining about wanting new stadiums to increase their revenue. By the way, me = bored too =)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 01/09/2004 @ 06:17:04 PM
I left my house today for the first time since monday. I had NFL films and Band of Brothers to keep me company for a while.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 01/09/2004 @ 07:36:19 PM
I just bought two Old Navy fleeces for 6.99 each. I'm beginning to think Old Navy steals their clothes and that's how they sell stuff so cheap. NFL.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/10/2004 @ 03:21:37 AM
If the harmless article about Green Bay got you upset I wouldn't suggest reading this.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 01/10/2004 @ 09:03:23 AM
I'm not a Favre fan in the least, and I am a bit tired of the "team of destiny" stuff just because his father died (that's not just a Favre thing, the media likes to do it with anyone who suffered a loss.) but, I think this article crosses a line that a journalist from a big city newspaper should know not to cross. It goes far beyond competitive rivalry and just comes across as mean and spiteful.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/10/2004 @ 10:25:13 AM
The other articles in the Philly Daily News were harmless fun, but I have very little respect for the establishment anymore. Yeah, rip on Favre for being addicted to pain killers, admitting it, and working to fix it? Question his dad's ascession to heaven? What is this? Philadelphia is the city of brotherly love in name only. I almost wish I could say this as an outsider so that it wouldn't sound biased, but that made me sick.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 01/10/2004 @ 12:19:17 PM
I agree that it crosses a line. Going after a guys family is not cool. However most of the stuff in the article is just from other articles and straight from Farve's mouth.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Anon. Nut Can Fan (Guest) 01/10/2004 @ 04:06:08 PM
why in the hell do you care if the packers won "championships" before you were born... who gives a shit... this goes along with the... how many super bowls have the vikings one... that is the lamest comeback I have ever heard and stop saying it		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 01/10/2004 @ 04:35:06 PM
1) The lions won 3 championships in 6 years and lost another one. 3-1 in 6 years equals 3:16. They are God's team as well as Steve Austins and dont you forget it. 2) That article was kind of mean. But don't you tell me that you havent ripped on Rush Limbaugh for "for being addicted to pain killers, admitting it, and working to fix it" 3) If I was golfing with Dan Marino and Jim Kelly, I would also fart.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 01/10/2004 @ 05:27:32 PM
Stephen Davis got hurt. It's now official. Green Bay will go to Carolina next week. Then, in a lucky sequence of events that will surprise no one, the team they play in the super bowl will lose thier entire starting offense on the last kneel down play in the AFC championship game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/10/2004 @ 06:51:20 PM
The Rams not spiking the ball and taking 2 shots to win the game with around 30 seconds left and deciding rather to run it all the way down and use their time out to kick a field goal where best case senerio was overtime was simply Viking-esq		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 01/10/2004 @ 07:43:30 PM
That was a nerve racking game, I tell you whut. Please win tomorrow Pack!!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - 3619 Posts 01/11/2004 @ 04:27:50 PM
woohoo!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy and Jon (Guest) 01/11/2004 @ 07:20:58 PM
That was an excrutiating(sp) way to lose. How did that many packers and coaches not know you can't call back to back timeouts? Time to join the rest of us on planning for the draft.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 01/11/2004 @ 07:33:14 PM
Also, how do you not go for it on fourth and a foot when you've only been stopped twice all year in that situation (Why would punt it into the endzone too)? And how do you give the receiver a 10 yard cushion on 3rd and 7 in overtime? And how do you miss 20 tackles on Duce in one play? And why would you run it everytime on 3rd down? And why would you launch a pass out into the great wide nowhere on first or second down (i was too annoyed to remember what down it actually was)? As soon as he cocked his arm to fire, I was like, "Please don't do that." And he did.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 01/11/2004 @ 07:35:42 PM
:-(........ Too sad to comment right now, maybe after I get over it, which could take about 5 years.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 01/11/2004 @ 07:42:23 PM
And how do you give up 4th and 26 with the season on the line? (Since sarcasm doesn't translate on the internet I'll just go ahead and point out that I'm being sarcastic.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 01/12/2004 @ 08:59:21 PM
So the Packers lose and people avoid page 3 like the plague? The Black plague that is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - 3619 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 12:25:20 AM
it's more like the red and yellow plague. i hope the eagles get killed, as well as the patriots. tom brady is annoying, so is mcnabb. actually, i don't really care who wins. i don't really like any of the teams that are left. that has happened to me like the last three years. if i'm even watching tv while the games are on, i'll probably watch college basketball instead. go badgers!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 01:01:39 AM
See what actually happened is God was pretty busy that night so he only allowed Irv Favre to be in control of the game for one quarter. So Irv decided to control the 1st quarter and give his son a good lead thinking, "Brett couldnt blow this good lead I give him." But he was wrong.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 01/13/2004 @ 01:45:37 PM
I haven't been avoiding Page 3, I've been out of town in Oshkosh since Saturday and I didn't have much internet access. Of the last 3 years of playoff losses, this won hurts probably the least, for me anyway. Favre's interception at the end of the game was a mistake, but even so an accident maybe. He audibled to Walker and apparently the two were thinking different things. Favre threw to where he thought Walker was going, but Walker read the call differently. It's always disappointing when the Packers don't go to the Super Bowl, but I see a lot of possitives for the Future. "Just wait till next year"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 04:54:22 PM
Throwing to where he thought Walker was going to be and throwing it 75 miles straight up into the air towards two Eagles are two different things.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 01/13/2004 @ 05:02:30 PM
I concur.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 01/13/2004 @ 05:35:43 PM
I'm not going to delve into this topic any deeper than this: Considering the last 3 playoff losses for the Packers (St. Louis, Atlanta, and Philadephia), all of which were more than devistating and crushing, moreso than some of the losses in the less than recent past (under Holmgren), I'm curious whether or not Mike Sherman is the right man for the job, as head coach at least.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 06:14:56 PM
I think it is the same thing, obviously a mistake and miscommunication, but had Walker gone where Favre thought he was going we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not placing the blame on Walker, but still.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 01/13/2004 @ 06:41:12 PM
First of all you're assuming it was a miscommunication. Secondly even if Walker was right there he would have still had to contend with two Eagles who were sitting back waiting, not playing catch up, for the punt of a pass and would have been lucky to knock it down. It was so bad they guy could have fair caught it and the second eagle had time to start setting up blocks before the ball had even come down into the other guys hands. I don't see how you can defend that pass as anything but stupid. I'm not saying Farve is stupid, or single-handedly knocked you out of the playoffs but that pass was inexcusable, for anyone. The fact that you claim Walker ran the wrong route and yet was still able to almost get over to that rainbow of a lob should if anything be a testament to how bad of a pass it was.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 01/13/2004 @ 09:33:55 PM
It's FaVRe.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 09:44:22 PM
Ok, stupid, yes, I'll come out of my denial, but a lot went wrong because of it. As I look at it more I see that, but still. Also, this one is Favre's fault, he thought Walker was in single coverage. He didn't see the safety creeping. The 4th and 26 play was eriely similar to the Owens catch. The linebacker (Barnett) did not come off the line far enough (same as the Owens catch) and the deep safety (Sharper in both games) did not come up far enough to knock down the pass. Man, it's a little disappointing to have a pro bowl safety make a pretty bonehead play like that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 09:52:22 PM
Ron Jaworski was on PTI for Five Good Minutes today. His take was that Favre saw the potential for a blitz and since it was a play action pass, he had his back turned to fake the handoff so he couldn't see what the defense was actually doing. When he came out of the fake handoff, he felt pressure, thought it was the blitz, and as such thought that Walker would be in single coverage so he threw it up thinking a jump ball or incompletion would be the worst result. Obviously Favre was wrong, the Safety covered, and the rest is history. Jaws also said that the play was a big mistake by Favre, and that if it was any other QB in the league, the media would have crucified him the next day.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 10:34:14 PM
I actually yelled Owens Owens when that happened		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 10:46:20 PM
He did. I was there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 10:46:30 PM
I saw that on PTI today too.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 01/13/2004 @ 10:58:31 PM
On the PTI thing: You did notice that Jaws did not crucify him, just that the media would have.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Christian (Guest) 01/13/2004 @ 11:09:51 PM
To all packer fans, are you tad bit annoyed with Farve's ability to throw really dumb passed at real critical times in games. I remeber the viking-pack opener where he laid a huge egg. Here in Minnesota if Duante would have thrown that pass it would be filet o' duante on the boards and in the media. What's word in packerland over this??		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbizzle - 3619 Posts 01/13/2004 @ 11:12:31 PM
Whoever calls the plays needs to be canned. Is that Sherman?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 01/14/2004 @ 10:31:35 AM
When a player almost single handidly turns around a program that has had decades of frustration, you tend to be a little more leniant on him. Also, when a player makes 10 great plays, 1 bad play that leads to a loss or something bad doesn't necessarily merrit a crucifixion (word of the week). Everyone here loves Favre, whether it's fair or not Favre doesn't get slammed by the media the way other QBs do. It's almost like this: when someone has performed the way Favre has over his career (better than almost every other QB in history) you start to think that he knows what he is doing, even when he does something dumb. It may not be a good outlook, but that's one of the ways I see it. I don't think Sherman is the play caller, it's the offensive coordinator that does a majority of it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Joe Montana, Johnny Unitas, Steve Young, Fran Tarkenton, John Elway, Dan Marino (Guest) 01/14/2004 @ 02:08:24 PM
Not almost every other QB in history.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 01/14/2004 @ 02:29:07 PM
Me, along with many prominent football personalities, historians, and analysts will argue (with much success), that Favre is better than at the very least 4 of the QBs on that list. Steve Young does not belong on that list.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 01/14/2004 @ 02:33:39 PM
Why doesn't Steve Young belong on the list?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/14/2004 @ 02:56:16 PM
He was only a starter for 6 years, he's only 19th in passing yards, and 17th in td passes, I'm just saying that he's kind of a stretch. Warren Moon would have been a better fit for that list, but not Young. He'll probably be in the hall of fame, but I think there are better people to include on a list of all time greatest QBs. Favre has played for 13 years, Marino played 16. If Brett Favre plays 3 more years and can throw 26 TD's in those years he will pass Marino in that category. And, if Favre has 3 modest years in completions and yards, he will move into #2 all time in both those categories.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 01/14/2004 @ 08:45:37 PM
Sandy Koufax only won 165 games during his career, but he's still considered one of the best pitchers of all time because for 6 years he was brilliant. Sometimes you measure by quantity, sometimes by quality. First of all Young was the starter for 8 seasons (plus 3 games of the '99 season before he had to retire), not 6. During that time he went to 7 straight Pro Bowls. Sure he doesn't have as many passing yards or touchdowns as others, but other QBs weren't stuck behind the greatest QB of all time for 4 seasons (not to mention having their career cut short for medical reasons). Young also threw 2.168 touchdowns for every interception he threw. Favre = 1.655; Montana = 1.964; Elway = 1.327; Marino = 1.666; Unitas = 1.146; Tarkenton = 1.285 (Note: While Tarkenton and Unitas' ratios are low, I think that part of that is from the era in which they played where, in general, completion percentage was lower and more INTs were thrown.). Now I admit Favre is a great QB, but if I had a team, I would take any of the other six listed to be my QB over Favre.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.