From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Apology - take foot out mouth :-)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:19:23 GMT

jg> John P. Gloria
gs> Gary Strand

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.

gs> "Big game" meaning "Super Bowl" and only "Super Bowl" in your view. Sorry,
    there are lots of games that are "big games", for example, championship 
    games, divisional playoff games, playoff games, and yes, even regular sea-
    son games.

jg> I did not mention SB above, you did.  

  OK, in that specific sentence, you didn't mention the SB. I've seen enough of
  your pap to know that you consider the SB the biggest game. To wit:

jg> A big game does not always mean the SB, although, there is not bigger IMHO.

  Why? Try substantiating your "IMHO" for a change, with facts, too.

jg> YES, I know their stats in the overall scheme of the NFL, but these stats,
    IMHO, are not going to win them SBs.

gs> No, nor will lousy stats keep a QB from winning an SB. [...] 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. Cunning-
    ham, Elway, and Kelly all fit that bill easily.

jg> 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?

  Because even great QBs, yes, even Joe Montana and Steve Young, have bad days,
  or have teammates that don't play up to their standard level. Given that SF
  lost to Buffalo and Kelly, and Kelly lost to the Raiders, would you say that
  SF could lose to the Raiders? Or, for example, Elway spanked the Chiefs, the
  Chiefs spanked the Eagles, ergo, Elway should spank the Eagles. NOT! Just
  goes to show that transivity doesn't apply to the NFL.

gs> A good QB who wins big games for his team in their hunt for the SB doesn't
    automatically become "suspect" or "average" merely if his team loses the
    SB.

jg> 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?

  Whack that strawman! Find any statement of mine that said that good stats
  (over a career, season, game, whatever) were good enough to win the game.
  I said earlier that Elway has little-better-than-average stats over his ca-
  reer, yet I don't think any player or coach in the NFL would call Elway a
  little-better-than-average QB.

jg> Elway's record speaks for itself, and likewise, Young's record speaks for
    itself.

  Record in terms of what? Ratings, games won as starter, SB record, what?

  I'd still like to see your support for your continued claims that the SB is
  the only game that really matters, and that a QB who has never made it, or
  has lost it, is therefore "suspect" as a great QB. Was Dan Fouts a great QB?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro