From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Apology - take foot out mouth :-)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:53:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.032842.244@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>jg> John P. Gloria
>
>jg> My only point, seriously, was to state that a Cunningham, Elway or Kelly,
>    are not Gods and they are suspect QBs (IMHO) when it comes to big games.
>
>  "Big game" meaning "Super Bowl" and only "Super Bowl" in your view. Sorry,
>  there's lots of games that are "big games", for example, championship games,
>  divisional playoff games, playoff games, and yes, even regular season games.
>
I did not mention SB above, you did.  A big game does not always mean the 
SB, although, there is not bigger IMHO.  Today's Raider win over the 
Bills was a BIG game, at least to the Raiders, if not a big game for the 
Bills. The Raiders defense really racked Kelly's nerve. Kelly threw 
for 300 yards and only 3 points! According to ESPN, the Bills did this 
in '88 against the Bears.

>jg> YES, I know their stats in the overall scheme of the NFL, but these stats,
>    IMHO, are not going to win them SBs.
>
>  No, nor will lousy stats keep a QB from winning an SB. Put a medicore QB be
>  hind a hypothetical team which has a massive line, give him two or three 
>  power running backs, and give him a defense that kills opponents, bingo, 
>  you've got all the necessary ingredients for a SB contender. Heck, if all
>  the guy does is hand off, he can still make it to the SB as part of such
>  a team. However, very few real teams have enough superiority in the non-QB
>  parts of the game to get by with a mediocre QB, so they need someone who's
>  pretty good. Cunningham, Elway, and Kelly all fit that bill easily.
>
I don't see the point of your inclusion of these, I do not differ from 
this assessment.  The 3 QBs fit all these nicely, except, as reflected 
in this SUNDAY's games, Cunningham & Kelly. What is your answer to this?
According to you, their stats indicate superior skills, yet they loss. WHY?

>  In any case, would you agree that getting to the SB requires a team to have
>  a good QB? And that big games need to be won to get to the SB? Ergo, a good
>  QB who wins big games for his team in their hunt for the SB doesn't auto-
>  matically become "suspect" or "average" merely if his team loses the SB.
>
Of course I agree, but my POINT is STATS still do not always win games, i.e.,
Cunningham (LOSS); Kelly (LOSS).  Tell me, don't these two QB's have the
stats, yet they LOSS?

>jg> BTW: I am a Niner fan, 
>
>  As if we didn't already know. Explains a lot.
>
No comment on my part. For me to comment this will only infuriate you.
>
>jg> As evidenced by today's win over the Patriots (Niners 24 Patriots 12), 
>    Young was able to come back and win the game. Although, I prefer Bono 
>    over Young, Young did what it took to win the game.
>
>  Elway's done the same 3 times over New England, a couple of times when NE
>  was a much better team too. Young hasn't even been in an SB, so does that
>  make Elway better than Young? Based on your criteria, 'twould seem so.
>
Your assessment is really a mute point, IMHO. Elway's record speaks for
itself, and likewise, Young's record speaks for itself.
>
>jg> So please accept my apologies for stepping on some toes and for my stupid
>    remarks in support of "non-facts" that I kinda threw in to mess with your
>    minds.
>
>  My acceptance of your "apology" is pending. Let's see you grow up and make
>  some reasoned arguments to dig yourself out of the hole you've made, then
>  I'll take you seriously, and not as just some random asshole.
>
Gary, your "anger" is reflecting and my apology was offerred in good
faith. I do not have hold my breath for any pending acceptances from
anyone. Life goes on.
-- 
  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com	--------	
  Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest
  of us could not succeed.  -   Mark Twain