PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong with Philip Rivers?


MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-29-2006, 05:02 PM
Last 2 games:

8-23(34.8) 97 yards, 2 INT

10-30(33.3) 181 yards


They're winning despite him right now. If he doesn't pick it up, he could become the reason they don't win the super bowl. He's putting alot of pressure on LT and that defense, and eventually, someone(Most likely the Ravens) will contain LT and make Philip beat them. He won't be able to do it playing the way he is now.

Windy
12-29-2006, 05:13 PM
I'd take Rex Grossman at this present time. Call me crazy or call be dumb watch grossman win and rivers smell like dung.

Jango
12-29-2006, 05:14 PM
He's just entering the phase where people know enough about him as a starter to limit him and his big play possibilities. IMO it's just a phase and he will snap out of it.

Having said that, he has still led his teams to wins and to the playoffs which was his goal at the beginning of the year. So even though lately he seems to be struggling, he still got the job done which is the number 1 priority.

diabsoule
12-29-2006, 05:38 PM
He got too much poontang which wore him out but I'm sure he'll bounce back fine. Guys adjust pretty well to getting the ladies and I'm sure little Rivers is now adjusted too.

SeanTaylorRIP
12-29-2006, 05:41 PM
He got too much poontang which wore him out but I'm sure he'll bounce back fine. Guys adjust pretty well to getting the ladies and I'm sure little Rivers is now adjusted too.

Wasn't he married with a kid before he was even drafted?

yourfavestoner
12-29-2006, 05:47 PM
He got too much poontang which wore him out but I'm sure he'll bounce back fine. Guys adjust pretty well to getting the ladies and I'm sure little Rivers is now adjusted too.

Wasn't he married with a kid before he was even drafted?

Yup.

San Diego Chicken
12-29-2006, 05:59 PM
Well first, he was a bit overrated in the middle of the season. Even in some of the games where Philip had good games statistically, he wasn't perfect and still showed some signs of his inexperience. Media praised his desisison making but he wasn't immune from making some bad desisions.

It takes him a while to get in rhythm. He's a rhythm passer and usually starts a game off slow. It's just the way he is. He's a little innacurate to start a game and it takes him a while to get used to the look that a defense is giving him.

Now for some of the things that aren't his fault, his WR corps has been dealing with injuries. McCardell, Parker and Floyd have spent time on the injured list. Parker has the most receptions of any Chargers wide reciever and is pretty reliable at getting open. Last week the Chargers dropped a lot of passes as well (at least five by my count including some uncharacteristic ones from LT)

Also, the playcalling hasn't helped him out. Early in the season the game plan was to get Rivers in rhythm early in the game by utilizing the short passing game and getting LT the ball on swing passes and screens. Lately Cameron has been electing to run alot of deep, low percentage pass plays early to open things up for LT. Case in point, LT has only 7 catches in the last five games and he's arguably the best/most dangerous recieving RB in the league.

diabsoule
12-29-2006, 06:15 PM
He got too much poontang which wore him out but I'm sure he'll bounce back fine. Guys adjust pretty well to getting the ladies and I'm sure little Rivers is now adjusted too.

Wasn't he married with a kid before he was even drafted?

Haven't you seen Any Given Sunday? Being married doesn't stop pro-athletes from getting poonanny.

12-29-2006, 06:23 PM
He's not Jay Cutler.

bmoreravens5289
12-29-2006, 06:28 PM
Defenses are getting more game tape to study him with. He might also be getting worn down as this is his first season as a starter.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-29-2006, 06:40 PM
He's not Jay Cutler.


****** right!

CC.SD
12-29-2006, 06:58 PM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-29-2006, 07:02 PM
Very good, all of you. Continue posting reasons.

CM4
12-29-2006, 07:11 PM
He stepped up when he had to last week...10 of 30 for 2 tds, you forgot that stat cutler....

that last drive had 3 key passes in it i believe. I feel that Rivers will be fine in the playoffs as long as SD is at home, but if they lose sunday for some odd reason to AZ and they haev to travel, i feel the inexperience will hurt him.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-29-2006, 07:13 PM
He stepped up when he had to last week...10 of 30 for 2 tds, you forgot that stat cutler....

that last drive had 3 key passes in it i believe. I feel that Rivers will be fine in the playoffs as long as SD is at home, but if they lose sunday for some odd reason to AZ and they haev to travel, i feel the inexperience will hurt him.

I have my reasons. Just you wait.

njx9
12-29-2006, 07:51 PM
i'm a bit surprised no one has any idea why this was posted. fyi chris, if it devolves into what i believe it will, i'll have to lock it and direct people to the proper place for the responses. though you may want to add a poll so that you can back-reference it later.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-29-2006, 08:00 PM
i'm a bit surprised no one has any idea why this was posted. fyi chris, if it devolves into what i believe it will, i'll have to lock it and direct people to the proper place for the responses. though you may want to add a poll so that you can back-reference it later.

I understand. And good idea with the poll btw.

toonsterwu
12-29-2006, 08:05 PM
What's wrong with him? Nothing really. Media overhyped him a bit earlier. He'll go through the normal growing pains, as will Tony Romo, of young QB's, but he has a strong cast around him. That said, relative to 2007, how he plays may determine how far they can go, so Chargers fans are hoping he can step it up a bit.

12-29-2006, 08:33 PM
i'm a bit surprised no one has any idea why this was posted. fyi chris, if it devolves into what i believe it will, i'll have to lock it and direct people to the proper place for the responses. though you may want to add a poll so that you can back-reference it later.

I understand. And good idea with the poll btw.

I'm missing something.

draftguru151
12-29-2006, 10:16 PM
:lol: Nice Chris. Mike Vick FTW

Mr. Stiller
12-29-2006, 10:23 PM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

... Why can't it just be Rivers Fault he's not playing well, how come he gets a "It's everyone elses fault" Free Pass?

CC.SD
12-29-2006, 11:26 PM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

... Why can't it just be Rivers Fault he's not playing well, how come he gets a "It's everyone elses fault" Free Pass?

Because it's a team game?

Shiver
12-30-2006, 01:43 AM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

It's the Quarterback who makes the receivers and O-Line better. If he was doing his job, those receivers would be performing at a much higher level. Dropped passes mean he throws too hard, and inaccurately. They can't be winning with him, because his completion percentage is so horrible.

cheesehead10790
12-30-2006, 02:17 AM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

It's the Quarterback who makes the receivers and O-Line better. If he was doing his job, those receivers would be performing at a much higher level. Dropped passes mean he throws too hard, and inaccurately. They can't be winning with him, because his completion percentage is so horrible.

I cant STAND that excuse.These pussies are getting paid millions of dollars and are then guna complain that the QB is throwing too hard??? No. that not how it works. Shut your mouth and catch the damn ball. Its your one and only job and its not that hard to do it. :x

Anyways, Philip's #1 receiver is McCardell who is old and hasnt caught a TD all year. Lets be fair, if he had a good #1 receiver his numbers would be way up.

Mr. Stiller
12-30-2006, 03:49 AM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

... Why can't it just be Rivers Fault he's not playing well, how come he gets a "It's everyone elses fault" Free Pass?

Because it's a team game?


Can everyone use that excuse?

zoinks
12-30-2006, 09:40 AM
I voted for "inexperienced first year starter; he'll get better"


Oh wait...that wasn't an option.


I smell an agenda.

12-30-2006, 09:43 AM
:lol: Nice Chris. Mike Vick FTW

I get it now. :D

bigbluedefense
12-30-2006, 10:11 AM
He's growing through the 2nd half slump that all first year starters go through outside of the exception of Tom Brady. It happens, its not a testament that he's a bad qb, but these things happen. After several weeks, teams figure out a first year starter and attack him. Its gonna take a great team effort for SD to win in the playoffs, because most likely Rivers won't have a great performance.

Having that said...isn't it ironic that everyone is pointing out the SAME reasons Rivers is doing bad that we have said for Eli, yet Eli sucks and Rivers is "winning football games" etc. Funny. Also, Roethlisberger "only won because of his team" yet when we mention the same circumstance with Rivers, all of a sudden its a "team sport". Yup......

Gribble
12-30-2006, 10:13 AM
He's growing through the 2nd half slump that all first year starters go through outside of the exception of Tom Brady. It happens, its not a testament that he's a bad qb, but these things happen. After several weeks, teams figure out a first year starter and attack him. Its gonna take a great team effort for SD to win in the playoffs, because most likely Rivers won't have a great performance.

Having that said...isn't it ironic that everyone is pointing out the SAME reasons Rivers is doing bad that we have said for Eli, yet Eli sucks and Rivers is "winning football games" etc. Funny. Also, Roethlisberger "only won because of his team" yet when we mention the same circumstance with Rivers, all of a sudden its a "team sport". Yup......

That sounds like a 15-1 team a couple years ago.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-30-2006, 10:48 AM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

It's the Quarterback who makes the receivers and O-Line better. If he was doing his job, those receivers would be performing at a much higher level. Dropped passes mean he throws too hard, and inaccurately. They can't be winning with him, because his completion percentage is so horrible.

I hear that! What a worthless thug, too. Last game or the game before, he missed a third down(what else is new?) and he took his helmet off in rage and started yelling. What a punk. I bet he's a terrible person off the field. He talks like a self-important punk.

snobdmat
12-30-2006, 11:46 AM
wow, im sorry that your team didnt win 13 games this year and you need an excuse to tear down the top team in the league.

granted rivers has not played his best ball in the last few weeks, he still has come back HUGE and won the game for the chargers ala last week, the bengals game, broncos game...just pick and watch.

and can u please define "self-important punk"

rivers seems like a down to earth type guy like most offensive charger players are. its called getting into the game and caring for your team.

the defense is another story(foley, keil, etc)

draftguru151
12-30-2006, 12:22 PM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

It's the Quarterback who makes the receivers and O-Line better. If he was doing his job, those receivers would be performing at a much higher level. Dropped passes mean he throws too hard, and inaccurately. They can't be winning with him, because his completion percentage is so horrible.

I hear that! What a worthless thug, too. Last game or the game before, he missed a third down(what else is new?) and he took his helmet off in rage and started yelling. What a punk. I bet he's a terrible person off the field. He talks like a self-important punk.

:lol: This may be the best, most misinterpreted thread ever.

CC.SD
12-30-2006, 01:05 PM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

It's the Quarterback who makes the receivers and O-Line better. If he was doing his job, those receivers would be performing at a much higher level. Dropped passes mean he throws too hard, and inaccurately. They can't be winning with him, because his completion percentage is so horrible.

I hear that! What a worthless thug, too. Last game or the game before, he missed a third down(what else is new?) and he took his helmet off in rage and started yelling. What a punk. I bet he's a terrible person off the field. He talks like a self-important punk.

:lol: This may be the best, most misinterpreted thread ever.

QFT

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-30-2006, 02:04 PM
He is a punter playing quarterback. And look at his throwing motion, it's pathetic. When he throws he makes it look like he rides the short bus.

Shiver
12-30-2006, 02:52 PM
Believe it or not, it is not all his fault. Against KC he had a guy in his face almost every time he dropped back.

Seattle, well, what can you say, he was off on a bunch of passes. It was raining. He also had at least 5 drops; I counted at least 3 from Vincent Jackson and a couple more from LT and Lorenzo Neal. If he had been 15/30 with 2 tds, no ints, and the win, no one would be saying anything.

But he made the bomb at the end of KC to seal the victory with that field goal.

And he slapped Seattle in the face with another bomb at the end of the game.

This is the most important though:
Keenan is playing hurt, and he's ancient. Parker has been out. Floyd is gone. Teams are double and tripling Gates. Jackson has been his only reliable target lately, and Jackson has had several very successful games now.

Hell, we just signed Az Hakim off the compost heap and everybody is wondering "Why is Rivers' play going south?" To quote Mencia, "dee dee dee."

They aren't winning "in spite of" Rivers. They could be doing a lot better if he was in the zone the entire game, but Rivers is going out and winning the games. 13 of them so far.

It's the Quarterback who makes the receivers and O-Line better. If he was doing his job, those receivers would be performing at a much higher level. Dropped passes mean he throws too hard, and inaccurately. They can't be winning with him, because his completion percentage is so horrible.

I cant STAND that excuse.These pussies are getting paid millions of dollars and are then guna complain that the QB is throwing too hard??? No. that not how it works. Shut your mouth and catch the damn ball. Its your one and only job and its not that hard to do it. :x

Anyways, Philip's #1 receiver is McCardell who is old and hasnt caught a TD all year. Lets be fair, if he had a good #1 receiver his numbers would be way up.

This is too good. :lol:

njx9
12-30-2006, 05:12 PM
i truly can't wait till this can carry over. all it needs is ea and that other guy making a few excuses for rivers.

eacantdraft
12-30-2006, 06:22 PM
i truly can't wait till this can carry over. all it needs is ea and that other guy making a few excuses for rivers.

River hit that brick yard many first year players yet. He is not playing his best, but he is not losing games and last week he made the clutch play when he had too.

marks01234
12-30-2006, 09:54 PM
First off, Rivers' last game wasn't really bad. It was terrible conditions and he got off to a slow start - going 0-11 with several dropped balls. After that he went 10-19 for 180 yards and 2 TD's including the game winner with 46 seconds left. While 10-30 is bad, given the conditions and the fact he was throwing downfield a lot, it was was alright - espically considering he didn't turn the ball over. Look at Hasselbacks stats - He was just over 50% with 2 INTs.

Knowing PR can lead his team to a W with 2 minutes left in terrible conditions told me a lot more about him than his bad start too. How many players have a "bad game" and still make the winning play the end?

RCAChainGang
12-30-2006, 10:38 PM
The answer to the question is ..............

They shoulda kept brees. :D

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-30-2006, 10:40 PM
I think Billy Volek is a better QB... remember when he came in a few years ago and didn't do too bad? That was amazing.

Shiver
12-30-2006, 10:43 PM
I think Billy Volek is a better QB... remember when he came in a few years ago and didn't do too bad? That was amazing.


If the Chargers want to consistently win they need to put in Volek. I mean in '04 he had a killer stretch with 15 touchdowns to 5 interceptions, and average over 300 yards per game. That's better than anything Rivers has ever done.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-30-2006, 10:47 PM
I think Billy Volek is a better QB... remember when he came in a few years ago and didn't do too bad? That was amazing.


If the Chargers want to consistently win they need to put in Volek. I mean in '04 he had a killer stretch with 15 touchdowns to 5 interceptions, and average over 300 yards per game. That's better than anything Rivers has ever done.

Yeah, and he had 2 straight games with over 400 yards and over 65% completions :shock: With an 8:1 TD:INT ratio, he's spectacular. Who cares that they didn't win 5 of his 7 starts.

RCAChainGang
12-30-2006, 10:56 PM
I think Billy Volek is a better QB... remember when he came in a few years ago and didn't do too bad? That was amazing.


If the Chargers want to consistently win they need to put in Volek. I mean in '04 he had a killer stretch with 15 touchdowns to 5 interceptions, and average over 300 yards per game. That's better than anything Rivers has ever done.

Yeah, and he had 2 straight games with over 400 yards and over 65% completions :shock: With an 8:1 TD:INT ratio, he's spectacular. Who cares that they didn't win 5 of his 7 starts.

Ya Volek never gets his credit. He sat behind McNair forever. I was kinda pissed off when the Titans took Collins over Volek.

cheesehead10790
12-30-2006, 11:58 PM
I think Billy Volek is a better QB... remember when he came in a few years ago and didn't do too bad? That was amazing.


If the Chargers want to consistently win they need to put in Volek. I mean in '04 he had a killer stretch with 15 touchdowns to 5 interceptions, and average over 300 yards per game. That's better than anything Rivers has ever done.

Thats a joke...right?

njx9
12-30-2006, 11:59 PM
I think Billy Volek is a better QB... remember when he came in a few years ago and didn't do too bad? That was amazing.


If the Chargers want to consistently win they need to put in Volek. I mean in '04 he had a killer stretch with 15 touchdowns to 5 interceptions, and average over 300 yards per game. That's better than anything Rivers has ever done.

Thats a joke...right?

why would it be? he was amazing in his starts in '04. he's cleary a much better quarterback than rivers.

12-31-2006, 12:00 AM
I love hypocrites. :lol:

cheesehead10790
12-31-2006, 12:03 AM
Ok so Rivers had 2 maybe 3 bad games. The point is (whether its due to LT or not) the Chargers are winning. Changing QB (especially taking out their future franchise QB) would be stupid and ruin the team chemistry.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-31-2006, 12:12 AM
Ok so Rivers had 2 maybe 3 bad games. The point is (whether its due to LT or not) the Chargers are winning. Changing QB (especially taking out their future franchise QB) would be stupid and ruin the team chemistry.

The Broncos were winning this year with Plummer...

you have to go with the best player, and that's Volek.

cheesehead10790
12-31-2006, 12:18 AM
Ok so Rivers had 2 maybe 3 bad games. The point is (whether its due to LT or not) the Chargers are winning. Changing QB (especially taking out their future franchise QB) would be stupid and ruin the team chemistry.

The Broncos were winning this year with Plummer...

you have to go with the best player, and that's Volek.

Well lets go ahead and use the Broncos as an example. Cutler took over and lost 3 consecutive games before he was able to mesh with the team. Rivers is winning and as long as he does what hes been doin most all year, SD will do fine. Volek is not the right option IMO, especially going into the playoffs.

njx9
12-31-2006, 12:23 AM
cutler's ability to win had NOTHING to do with meshing with the team.

cheesehead10790
12-31-2006, 12:25 AM
Ya it does. He lost the first 3 games because he wasnt on the same page as the rest of the team. It has everything to do with it imo.

njx9
12-31-2006, 12:25 AM
Ya it does. He lost the first 3 games because he wasnt on the same page as the rest of the team. It has everything to do with it imo.

you clearly haven't watched more than 30 seconds of denver broncos games this year. is it fun to be completely wrong?

cheesehead10790
12-31-2006, 12:26 AM
Ya it does. He lost the first 3 games because he wasnt on the same page as the rest of the team. It has everything to do with it imo.

you clearly haven't watched more than 30 seconds of denver broncos games this year. is it fun to be completely wrong?

So when are you going to prove your point here?

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-31-2006, 12:28 AM
Ya it does. He lost the first 3 games because he wasnt on the same page as the rest of the team. It has everything to do with it imo.

Actually, he threw for 2 TDs in each of those games, and really only looked bad against Seattle, which is understandable, being his first game and all. Plus the defense couldnt stop anyone those games, nor could the o-line block anyone. Their left tackle is Eric Pears.

njx9
12-31-2006, 12:29 AM
Ya it does. He lost the first 3 games because he wasnt on the same page as the rest of the team. It has everything to do with it imo.

you clearly haven't watched more than 30 seconds of denver broncos games this year. is it fun to be completely wrong?

So when are you going to prove your point here?

it's been proven in the broncos thread multiple times. why would i let you sidetrack this thread with an utterly baseless argument any more than you already have?if you really revel in being proven wrong, feel free to take it up with me in the broncos team thread.

cheesehead10790
12-31-2006, 12:29 AM
Ya it does. He lost the first 3 games because he wasnt on the same page as the rest of the team. It has everything to do with it imo.

Actually, he threw for 2 TDs in each of those games, and really only looked bad against Seattle, which is understandable, being his first game and all. Plus the defense couldnt stop anyone those games, nor could the o-line block anyone. Their left tackle is Eric Pears.

Ya i guess. But still I dont see that putting in Volek would help. Rivers is the best option at this point. Volek hasnt taken a snap all year.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-31-2006, 12:30 AM
Ya it does. He lost the first 3 games because he wasnt on the same page as the rest of the team. It has everything to do with it imo.

you clearly haven't watched more than 30 seconds of denver broncos games this year. is it fun to be completely wrong?

So when are you going to prove your point here?

Cutler in those games was the best thing the Broncos had. Outside that terrible interception against Seattle, he's been excellent. Watch the Chiefs game, where they couldn't tackle LJ. The Chargers game, where LT ran free for 3 TDs, and the running game couldnt really get going on a consistent basis other than the one big gain. And Merriman straight making Pears his *****,

12-31-2006, 12:30 AM
You really don't see the parallel yet cheesehead?

cheesehead10790
12-31-2006, 12:35 AM
Umm ok about 3 posts up i just threw up the white flag but i guess you guys didnt see that.

Ok if you want me to say it CUTLER IS NOT THE REASON DENVER LOST 3 CONSECUTIVE GAMES.

Regardless Rivers is the right choice here.

4pAc
12-31-2006, 12:35 AM
Reading the last two pages gave me a stomach ache(from laughing too hard) :lol:

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-31-2006, 12:37 AM
Umm ok about 3 posts up i just threw up the white flag but i guess you guys didnt see that.

Ok if you want me to say it CUTLER IS NOT THE REASON DENVER LOST 3 CONSECUTIVE GAMES.

Regardless Rivers is the right choice here.

Sorry about that, I guess I just posted at the same time as you :lol: :lol:

draftguru151
12-31-2006, 09:17 AM
Ya it does. He lost the first 3 games because he wasnt on the same page as the rest of the team. It has everything to do with it imo.

Actually, he threw for 2 TDs in each of those games, and really only looked bad against Seattle, which is understandable, being his first game and all. Plus the defense couldnt stop anyone those games, nor could the o-line block anyone. Their left tackle is Eric Pears.

Ya i guess. But still I dont see that putting in Volek would help. Rivers is the best option at this point. Volek hasnt taken a snap all year.

But he had those amazing games he is 1337!!!!11!1!!

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-31-2006, 10:56 AM
Ya it does. He lost the first 3 games because he wasnt on the same page as the rest of the team. It has everything to do with it imo.

Actually, he threw for 2 TDs in each of those games, and really only looked bad against Seattle, which is understandable, being his first game and all. Plus the defense couldnt stop anyone those games, nor could the o-line block anyone. Their left tackle is Eric Pears.

Ya i guess. But still I dont see that putting in Volek would help. Rivers is the best option at this point. Volek hasnt taken a snap all year.

But he had those amazing games he is 1337!!!!11!1!!

QFT. Even better would be if they still had Cleo Lemon. Letting him go was the biggest mistake since drafting Leaf, who is also better than Rivers.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 11:17 AM
WOW, another interception. How is this guy starting?

jkpigskin
01-02-2007, 12:16 PM
he is still a good qb, but his lack of experience is showing as he is fading down the stretch... maybe its fatigue because in college they play around 13 games and rivers was doing great until the past couple weeks

P-L
01-02-2007, 12:28 PM
What's the point of this thread? Rivers has had two bad games. And let me remind you that in one of those bad games, he threw 2 TD and 0 INT.

Vikings Fan
01-02-2007, 01:02 PM
What's the point of this thread? Rivers has had two bad games. And let me remind you that in one of those bad games, he threw 2 TD and 0 INT.

:roll: There is no point, people cant get over the fact that this is Mike Vicks 6th year in the league and he is still inconsistant. People say his recievers drop balls but I saw at LEAST 2 dropped INTs in the Eagles game. People need to get over the fact that Vick is and always will be inconsistant.

His supporting cast may not be the greatest but he doesnt step into the pocket even when he is given time.

01-02-2007, 01:05 PM
What's the point of this thread? Rivers has had two bad games. And let me remind you that in one of those bad games, he threw 2 TD and 0 INT.

To show that Billy Volek should be the starter in San Diego.

sdpads24
01-02-2007, 07:15 PM
chargers have won 10 straight....who cares

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 07:22 PM
chargers have won 10 straight....who cares

While playing 1(one) AFC playoff team. Their record against teams currently in the AFC playoffs? 1-2. They're playing playoff teams only now, and Rivers playing like crap will NOT get it done.

rocco31fb
01-02-2007, 07:24 PM
San Deigo had home field wrapped up with 2 games to go. With no need to win, the whole team relaxed and it showed in more than just Rivers. I'm sorry, but I think this thread was created because Chris is still mad the Broncos missed the playoffs.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 07:31 PM
San Deigo had home field wrapped up with 2 games to go. With no need to win, the whole team relaxed and it showed in more than just Rivers. I'm sorry, but I think this thread was created because Chris is still mad the Broncos missed the playoffs.

I actually started this thread when it looked like we were in.. might have actually even been before th Bengals game ended, not sure. I'm not even really that pissed about missing the playoffs, it's disappointing, but the Broncos have nobody to blame but themselves. They should be a 12-4 team right now because they shoulda beaten STL, SF and SD the first time. But they aren't.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 07:34 PM
And they actually didn't have homefield wrapped up, if they lost, Baltimore would get it.

rocco31fb
01-02-2007, 07:35 PM
San Deigo had home field wrapped up with 2 games to go. With no need to win, the whole team relaxed and it showed in more than just Rivers. I'm sorry, but I think this thread was created because Chris is still mad the Broncos missed the playoffs.

I actually started this thread when it looked like we were in.. might have actually even been before th Bengals game ended, not sure. I'm not even really that pissed about missing the playoffs, it's disappointing, but the Broncos have nobody to blame but themselves. They should be a 12-4 team right now because they shoulda beaten STL, SF and SD the first time. But they aren't.

The Broncos should be a 10-6 team if they stayed with Plummer. They gave up on the season when they chose to start Cutler. You can't say they shoulda beat a team when they had a chance and didn't.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 07:40 PM
San Deigo had home field wrapped up with 2 games to go. With no need to win, the whole team relaxed and it showed in more than just Rivers. I'm sorry, but I think this thread was created because Chris is still mad the Broncos missed the playoffs.

I actually started this thread when it looked like we were in.. might have actually even been before th Bengals game ended, not sure. I'm not even really that pissed about missing the playoffs, it's disappointing, but the Broncos have nobody to blame but themselves. They should be a 12-4 team right now because they shoulda beaten STL, SF and SD the first time. But they aren't.

The Broncos should be a 10-6 team if they stayed with Plummer. They gave up on the season when they chose to start Cutler. You can't say they shoulda beat a team when they had a chance and didn't.

Well I'm not saying we got robbed of those games, I'm saying we pissed them away by playing badly. We were in position to win those games. And Plummer was awful, honestly, he was just terrible, Cutler was EASILY ten times better. Consider Cutler almost had a 2:1 TD:INT ratio and had 2 TDs in each of his first four starts(tying a rookie record) Plummer through 2 more INTs than TDs and only averaged 1 TD per game. The offense was stagnant when Plummer was in there, Cutler brought life to the offense.

rocco31fb
01-02-2007, 07:44 PM
San Deigo had home field wrapped up with 2 games to go. With no need to win, the whole team relaxed and it showed in more than just Rivers. I'm sorry, but I think this thread was created because Chris is still mad the Broncos missed the playoffs.

I actually started this thread when it looked like we were in.. might have actually even been before th Bengals game ended, not sure. I'm not even really that pissed about missing the playoffs, it's disappointing, but the Broncos have nobody to blame but themselves. They should be a 12-4 team right now because they shoulda beaten STL, SF and SD the first time. But they aren't.

The Broncos should be a 10-6 team if they stayed with Plummer. They gave up on the season when they chose to start Cutler. You can't say they shoulda beat a team when they had a chance and didn't.

Well I'm not saying we got robbed of those games, I'm saying we pissed them away by playing badly. We were in position to win those games. And Plummer was awful, honestly, he was just terrible, Cutler was EASILY ten times better. Consider Cutler almost had a 2:1 TD:INT ratio and had 2 TDs in each of his first four starts(tying a rookie record) Plummer through 2 more INTs than TDs and only averaged 1 TD per game. The offense was stagnant when Plummer was in there, Cutler brought life to the offense.

While I agree with you on his stats, more than a few of those TDs that Cutler threw were jump balls that he was lucky to complete. Also, the Brandon Marshall TD was bad tackling by the Seattle Defense. I don't want to go over every TD Cutler and Plummer threw, but I don't agree that Cutler was 10 times better. He made some of the dumbest throws that a rookie would make that ruined a lot of those games. While the offense wasn't as exciting when Plummer was in, he gave the Broncos the best chance to win. I know it's tough to admit, but the Master made the wrong call when he benched Plummer.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 07:53 PM
San Deigo had home field wrapped up with 2 games to go. With no need to win, the whole team relaxed and it showed in more than just Rivers. I'm sorry, but I think this thread was created because Chris is still mad the Broncos missed the playoffs.

I actually started this thread when it looked like we were in.. might have actually even been before th Bengals game ended, not sure. I'm not even really that pissed about missing the playoffs, it's disappointing, but the Broncos have nobody to blame but themselves. They should be a 12-4 team right now because they shoulda beaten STL, SF and SD the first time. But they aren't.

The Broncos should be a 10-6 team if they stayed with Plummer. They gave up on the season when they chose to start Cutler. You can't say they shoulda beat a team when they had a chance and didn't.

Well I'm not saying we got robbed of those games, I'm saying we pissed them away by playing badly. We were in position to win those games. And Plummer was awful, honestly, he was just terrible, Cutler was EASILY ten times better. Consider Cutler almost had a 2:1 TD:INT ratio and had 2 TDs in each of his first four starts(tying a rookie record) Plummer through 2 more INTs than TDs and only averaged 1 TD per game. The offense was stagnant when Plummer was in there, Cutler brought life to the offense.

While I agree with you on his stats, more than a few of those TDs that Cutler threw were jump balls that he was lucky to complete. Also, the Brandon Marshall TD was bad tackling by the Seattle Defense. I don't want to go over every TD Cutler and Plummer threw, but I don't agree that Cutler was 10 times better. He made some of the dumbest throws that a rookie would make that ruined a lot of those games. While the offense wasn't as exciting when Plummer was in, he gave the Broncos the best chance to win. I know it's tough to admit, but the Master made the wrong call when he benched Plummer.

I saw most of Cutler's games, and the only absolutely horrendous decision was the INT against Seattle that got returned for a TD. The pick-six against the 9ers wasn't good either. And he didn't ruin alot of those games. He was under alot of pressure, and the defense simply underperformed the last several weeks.


Plummer sucks. He was terrible, other Broncos fans will agree with me. The guy was terrible the whole year, and I actually wanted him to start until I realised it too. Plummer in no way gave the Broncos a better chance to win. The offense couldnt even move the ball when he was in, they were TERRIBLE. Cutler comes in, and their offense becomes actually pretty good. PPG with Plummer, 17. PPG with Cutler: 24.8. A full touchdown of improvement. Also to note, while Cutler has been in, Denver has not scored under 20 points, which is 3 points over Plummer's average.


Plus, Plummer is one of the most mistake prone QBs in the league, he definitely did more to lose games than Cutler did.

But we should probably move on from this, as it IS a Philip Rivers thread.

rocco31fb
01-02-2007, 08:04 PM
San Deigo had home field wrapped up with 2 games to go. With no need to win, the whole team relaxed and it showed in more than just Rivers. I'm sorry, but I think this thread was created because Chris is still mad the Broncos missed the playoffs.

I actually started this thread when it looked like we were in.. might have actually even been before th Bengals game ended, not sure. I'm not even really that pissed about missing the playoffs, it's disappointing, but the Broncos have nobody to blame but themselves. They should be a 12-4 team right now because they shoulda beaten STL, SF and SD the first time. But they aren't.

The Broncos should be a 10-6 team if they stayed with Plummer. They gave up on the season when they chose to start Cutler. You can't say they shoulda beat a team when they had a chance and didn't.

Well I'm not saying we got robbed of those games, I'm saying we pissed them away by playing badly. We were in position to win those games. And Plummer was awful, honestly, he was just terrible, Cutler was EASILY ten times better. Consider Cutler almost had a 2:1 TD:INT ratio and had 2 TDs in each of his first four starts(tying a rookie record) Plummer through 2 more INTs than TDs and only averaged 1 TD per game. The offense was stagnant when Plummer was in there, Cutler brought life to the offense.

While I agree with you on his stats, more than a few of those TDs that Cutler threw were jump balls that he was lucky to complete. Also, the Brandon Marshall TD was bad tackling by the Seattle Defense. I don't want to go over every TD Cutler and Plummer threw, but I don't agree that Cutler was 10 times better. He made some of the dumbest throws that a rookie would make that ruined a lot of those games. While the offense wasn't as exciting when Plummer was in, he gave the Broncos the best chance to win. I know it's tough to admit, but the Master made the wrong call when he benched Plummer.

I saw most of Cutler's games, and the only absolutely horrendous decision was the INT against Seattle that got returned for a TD. The pick-six against the 9ers wasn't good either. And he didn't ruin alot of those games. He was under alot of pressure, and the defense simply underperformed the last several weeks.


Plummer sucks. He was terrible, other Broncos fans will agree with me. The guy was terrible the whole year, and I actually wanted him to start until I realised it too. Plummer in no way gave the Broncos a better chance to win. The offense couldnt even move the ball when he was in, they were TERRIBLE. Cutler comes in, and their offense becomes actually pretty good. PPG with Plummer, 17. PPG with Cutler: 24.8. A full touchdown of improvement. Also to note, while Cutler has been in, Denver has not scored under 20 points, which is 3 points over Plummer's average.


Plus, Plummer is one of the most mistake prone QBs in the league, he definitely did more to lose games than Cutler did.

But we should probably move on from this, as it IS a Philip Rivers thread.

Phillip Rivers>Jay Cutler

Rivers will surprise everyone in the playoffs. That's my prediction.

njx9
01-02-2007, 08:18 PM
but the Master made the wrong call when he benched Plummer.

please, join me in the broncos thread and explain what games you were watching when you thought you were seeing denver play.

Draft King
01-02-2007, 09:50 PM
Somebody explain to me how Rivers is even a quarterback in this league. Look at the size of this guy, he should be a safety for that terrible defense of the Chargers. He constantly throws too hard, and has no accuracy what-so-ever. McCardell can only make so many plays, it's not his fault Rivers is whipping his balls all over the place. Billy Volek on the other hand, could be a starter for just about and team in this league and it's a crime he's on the bench behind Phillip Rivers. Turn Rivers to a safety where he belongs, and let Volek bomb out some TD's to McCardell and Jackson.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 10:17 PM
Philip Rivers' hobbies are golf, fishing, and reading the newspaper. I bet he enjoys talking about politics to his wife, too. God I hate him.

Draft King
01-02-2007, 11:00 PM
Philip Rivers' hobbies are golf, fishing, and reading the newspaper. I bet he enjoys talking about politics to his wife, too. God I hate him.

As I said earlier, Volek > Rivers. River's nuthuggers have nothing yet to say against the truth.

scar988
01-02-2007, 11:02 PM
wow. after reading this topic I find it funny how guys liek Shiver and Draft King use the same arguements against Rivers that are used against Vick, yet Rivers is a golden boy... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Draft King
01-02-2007, 11:12 PM
wow. after reading this topic I find it funny how guys liek Shiver and Draft King use the same arguements against Vick that are used against Rivers, yet Rivers is a golden boy... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just do a little switcharoo between those names.

Windy
01-02-2007, 11:15 PM
Rivers is a great leader. Even as a raider fan i like him. coo

Draft King
01-02-2007, 11:16 PM
Rivers is a great leader. Even as a raider fan i like him. coo

Yeah, he's great at leading his recievers right into the opposing bench on throws. Face it, the man is overrated and garbage.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 11:27 PM
The only thing Rivers does well is pick out the best American Eagle shirts.

Shiver
01-02-2007, 11:40 PM
Tony Romo is only an athlete. Look at his past five games; at passer rating at 77, more interceptions than touchdowns, seven fumbles! It's pretty obvious he fumbles so much because he just runs around all the time. Eight interceptions in five games, he isn't smart enough for a position. As Michael Irvin says he has 'a little slave stud in him,' very true, because of that he shouldn't play the position. At 6'2" 225-lbs, and his black bloodlines caused athleticism, he'd be a great Safety. He could definitely cover better than Roy Williams for sure. The Cowboys need to get a pocket passer who doesn't run around and cause turnovers, losing to bad teams like Detroit!

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 11:43 PM
Tony Romo is only an athlete. Look at his past five games; at passer rating at 77, more interceptions than touchdowns, seven fumbles! It's pretty obvious he fumbles so much because he just runs around all the time. Eight interceptions in five games, he isn't smart enough for a position. As Michael Irvin says he has 'a little slave stud in him,' very true, because of that he shouldn't play the position. At 6'2" 225-lbs, and his black bloodlines caused athleticism, he'd be a great Safety. He could definitely cover better than Roy Williams for sure. The Cowboys need to get a pocket passer who doesn't run around and cause turnovers, losing to bad teams like Detroit!

BRING BACK BLEDSOE!!!! HE WON A SB IN 2001!!!

Windy
01-02-2007, 11:47 PM
I guess i'll join in on this thread of hatred for qb's. just because

let's see

i hate eli manning just because i dont like him

let's see

i hate matt hasselbeck just because i dont like him

let's see hmm

who else dont i like hmmm

how about this trend?

jay cutler because he plays in the afc west so he sucks

trent green because he plays in the afc west so he sucks

phillip rivers because he plays in the afc west so he sucks


oh but andrew walter is the best out of all them because he plays for the team i like.

Tubby
01-02-2007, 11:51 PM
i hate matt hasselbeck just because i dont like him


tubby... smash...

(i know wcbgu's post is sarcastic)

Windy
01-02-2007, 11:53 PM
I hate marcus tubbs because i say so

http://www.hhweb.com/photos/tubbs-marcus-dft-1.jpg

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-02-2007, 11:55 PM
the only thing Marcus Tubbs is good at is picking out the best fast food restaurants.

Tubby
01-02-2007, 11:56 PM
Windy: I was just on isketch impersonating you. It was a blast.

Chris: You want your rubber fist back?

Shiver
01-02-2007, 11:57 PM
Tony Romo is only an athlete. Look at his past five games; at passer rating at 77, more interceptions than touchdowns, seven fumbles! It's pretty obvious he fumbles so much because he just runs around all the time. Eight interceptions in five games, he isn't smart enough for a position. As Michael Irvin says he has 'a little slave stud in him,' very true, because of that he shouldn't play the position. At 6'2" 225-lbs, and his black bloodlines caused athleticism, he'd be a great Safety. He could definitely cover better than Roy Williams for sure. The Cowboys need to get a pocket passer who doesn't run around and cause turnovers, losing to bad teams like Detroit!

BRING BACK BLEDSOE!!!! HE WON A SB IN 2001!!!

Bledsoe is a QUARTERBACK, a person who will beat you in the pocket. Romo is just an athlete, who runs around with his black-like athleticism.

TIP
01-03-2007, 01:19 AM
Rivers is gonna be like Big Ben in the playoffs his rookie season. This is Phillips first year as a full starter, I'm wondering if its worn him down at all

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-03-2007, 12:05 PM
Tony Romo is only an athlete. Look at his past five games; at passer rating at 77, more interceptions than touchdowns, seven fumbles! It's pretty obvious he fumbles so much because he just runs around all the time. Eight interceptions in five games, he isn't smart enough for a position. As Michael Irvin says he has 'a little slave stud in him,' very true, because of that he shouldn't play the position. At 6'2" 225-lbs, and his black bloodlines caused athleticism, he'd be a great Safety. He could definitely cover better than Roy Williams for sure. The Cowboys need to get a pocket passer who doesn't run around and cause turnovers, losing to bad teams like Detroit!

BRING BACK BLEDSOE!!!! HE WON A SB IN 2001!!!

Bledsoe is a QUARTERBACK, a person who will beat you in the pocket. Romo is just an athlete, who runs around with his black-like athleticism.

You can only win with a guy back there who is willing to stay in the pocket and throw.

Draft King
01-03-2007, 11:34 PM
All the huggers gone to bed. Ahwww, poor huggers can't defend Rivers.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-14-2007, 08:40 PM
I'd like to see what the fangirls have to say now that the golden boy cost his team the Super Bowl.

Number 10
01-14-2007, 08:43 PM
Steelers fans now have something in common with Charger fans

NFLBOY
01-14-2007, 08:46 PM
Not really. we have a qb who has won a superbowl. I'd say giants fans and chargers fans have the same thing in common. A qb who choked in the playoffs. Both 1 and done.

Vikings Fan
01-14-2007, 08:48 PM
Tony Romo is only an athlete. Look at his past five games; at passer rating at 77, more interceptions than touchdowns, seven fumbles! It's pretty obvious he fumbles so much because he just runs around all the time. Eight interceptions in five games, he isn't smart enough for a position. As Michael Irvin says he has 'a little slave stud in him,' very true, because of that he shouldn't play the position. At 6'2" 225-lbs, and his black bloodlines caused athleticism, he'd be a great Safety. He could definitely cover better than Roy Williams for sure. The Cowboys need to get a pocket passer who doesn't run around and cause turnovers, losing to bad teams like Detroit!

BRING BACK BLEDSOE!!!! HE WON A SB IN 2001!!!

Bledsoe is a QUARTERBACK, a person who will beat you in the pocket. Romo is just an athlete, who runs around with his black-like athleticism.


Irvin? Is that you?

NFLBOY
01-14-2007, 08:49 PM
Last 2 games:

8-23(34.8) 97 yards, 2 INT

10-30(33.3) 181 yards


They're winning despite him right now. If he doesn't pick it up, he could become the reason they don't win the super bowl. He's putting alot of pressure on LT and that defense, and eventually, someone(Most likely the Ravens) will contain LT and make Philip beat them. He won't be able to do it playing the way he is now. This is also his first year as a starter. I don't get where people on this site always crown qb's the next great thing after they have one good season. Also I wouldn't say a guy sucks after starting for only 1 season. It takes time for a qb to either do the job or show he just doesn't have what it takes. Kinda like people jumping on the Romo bandwagon after 4 or 5 good games. These guys are young and you can't annoint them the greatest things since sliced bread.

SterlingSharpe
01-14-2007, 08:52 PM
When was the last time the Chargers drafted a talented WR?
Why didn't they bring in Javon Walker?

They keep thinking Antonio Gates is the only receiving threat the team needs and the bums like slipper hands Erik Parker, and slippery hands Vincent Jackson, and 46-year old Keenan McCardell are good enough.

Well it bit them in the ass today didn't it? Those 9 dropped passes cost them points in a close game. Plus when the idiot DB McCree DID catch the pass on 4th down for an INT, he shouldn't have. All he had to do was knock it down, or pretend he was Erik Parker and drop it.

A QB can only put the ball in a catchable spot. He can't make them catch it. Rivers gets a C for his game today from me. But those WRs get an F.

Jughead10
01-14-2007, 09:31 PM
Not really. we have a qb who has won a superbowl. I'd say giants fans and chargers fans have the same thing in common. A qb who choked in the playoffs. Both 1 and done.

Rivers blew that game. Sure his WRs dropped a few but he overthrew Jackson a lot. Way too high. The defense and running game played well enough to win and they just didn't get it done at the QB position. Is that a knock on Rivers? Not really. He is a first year QB. Is Rivers overrated? Certainly. I don't know how he is in the pro bowl.

dre1614
01-14-2007, 09:47 PM
Tony Romo is only an athlete. Look at his past five games; at passer rating at 77, more interceptions than touchdowns, seven fumbles! It's pretty obvious he fumbles so much because he just runs around all the time. Eight interceptions in five games, he isn't smart enough for a position. As Michael Irvin says he has 'a little slave stud in him,' very true, because of that he shouldn't play the position. At 6'2" 225-lbs, and his black bloodlines caused athleticism, he'd be a great Safety. He could definitely cover better than Roy Williams for sure. The Cowboys need to get a pocket passer who doesn't run around and cause turnovers, losing to bad teams like Detroit!

BRING BACK BLEDSOE!!!! HE WON A SB IN 2001!!!

Bledsoe is a QUARTERBACK, a person who will beat you in the pocket. Romo is just an athlete, who runs around with his black-like athleticism.

You can only win with a guy back there who is willing to stay in the pocket and throw.

i hope you guys are joking.

If he is just an athlete, athletes dont just throw for over 65% of their passes their first year starting. athletes dont just throw for a LEAGUE BEST 8.61 YPA. Athletes dont just throw for 19 td's. Athletes dont just have a 95+ QB rating their first year starting.

so spare me your hate of the guy.

isnt a coincidence

his first 5 games our D was good, and we could run the ball
the last 6 games our D sucked, and we couldnt run the ball(except for the Seattle game)

isnt a coincidence, that the reason he is running around out there because our OLINE sucks? i mean every fan in the NFL knows the COWBOYS oline sucks.

dont tell me he isnt "smart enough" to play QB. Thats probably the most rediculous thing i have ever heard. Not only did he have a 37 wonderlic score, but he handles the media like a vet, he cracks jokes to them all the time, he gets them laughing. He respects his opponent's. He goes through his progressions like a vet. and if you have seen all of his games you know that he does.

The only thing he needs to work on is his fumbles, and less int's. But it was his first yera starting he cant be perfect