namelesstavern.net

So I think USC has come up with a brilliant spin campaign..... They must be offering the services of their beautiful coeds to all of the sportscasters in the US....

THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I CAN IMAGINE THAT THEY ALL JUST ABOUT SOIL THEMSELVES WHEN TALK OF THE ROSE BOWL HAPPENS.... AND THE ONLY THING YOU HEAR ABOUT IS USC.

Texas is mentioned when they say "well, how can Texas keep USC from scoring? They can't (chuckle) USC will blahblahblahblahblahblah...."

I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope it is UT fo tha win!

They've won 30 some-odd games in a row. Do you expect people to come out and say they suck?

I live in Texas and thats all we've been bombarded with all year is how great Texas is and how Vince Young is a better runner than Vick and a better quarterback than Joe Montana so I imagine its annoying on both sides of the fence. Thank goodness after tonight it will be over.

Joe Montana wasn't that great of a quarterback. It's like saying Bob Griese was one of the best just because the dolphins were so great at the time. Take Rice, that offensive line, and the running game they had away and Montana becomes another Kosar.

That's not like it at all. Montana was already great and won two Super Bowls before Rice and that running game even got there. Montana also has ridiculous career efficiency stats, something that homers like Griese, Bradshaw, and Starr didn't even come close to despite having terrific teams.

I'm not sure how you could not call Montana a great QB. He had icewater running through his veins, was amazingly accurate, and quite possibly the greatest clutch QB of all time.

lyion wrote:I'm not sure how you could not call Montana a great QB. He had icewater running through his veins, was amazingly accurate, and quite possibly the greatest clutch QB of all time.

Living in Colorado for a few years, I know there are people who'd debate the whole clutch rating, but yeah, Montana was absolutely a great quarterback. Funny how great QBs tend to have great wideouts, isn't it? It's almost as if having an exceptional quarterback somehow enhances a receiver's career or something. Arguing that Montana was great because of Rice is downright silly. You could just as easily argue that Rice was only great because of Young and Montana, and you'd be just as wrong.

if you say that the great QB's have great receivers is kind of remarkably stupid.... OF COURSE THEY DO, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE GREAT IF THEY DON"T THROW THE BALL? but if they are great did they make the receiver great OR did the receiver make the QB great, blah blah blah blah

you have to look at several things, win pct., clutch win pct., superbowl wins, accuracy, mobility, etc.

not sure why, but i am REALLY into using caps today....