Cutler and Rivers (1 Viewer)

[jonessed]

You don't shouldn't get another opportunity to win it on your own. The very nature of that statement acknowledges that they did not win on their own.

Fixed. Clearly, every now and then, you do get another opportunity.

Maybe this will helpYou don't get another opportunity to win it on your own. The very nature of that statement acknowledges that they did not win on their own.

Do you really want to argue semantics? Because if you do PM me and I'll explain. Otherwise, take it easy...

Pointing out a contradiction is not semantics. You can't be given another opportunity to win on your own. Seems like a pretty simple concept and yet it keeps getting tossed out there.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's not semantics. If someone not on your team helps you you're not winning it on your own. Damn, I'm a Denver homer and even I can acknowledge that.

Yes, it is semantics. Do you really want to keep this going? PM me if you want to discuss it. It is pointless to have it in this thread.

It's not pointless to have it in this thread. If so, you shouldn't make the assertion. Is there a reason you refuse to explain why it's semantics in a public venue? Afraid to look bad in front of a larger audience maybe?

 

[thatguy]

You don't shouldn't get another opportunity to win it on your own. The very nature of that statement acknowledges that they did not win on their own.

Fixed. Clearly, every now and then, you do get another opportunity.

Maybe this will helpYou don't get another opportunity to win it on your own. The very nature of that statement acknowledges that they did not win on their own.

Do you really want to argue semantics? Because if you do PM me and I'll explain. Otherwise, take it easy...

Pointing out a contradiction is not semantics. You can't be given another opportunity to win on your own. Seems like a pretty simple concept and yet it keeps getting tossed out there.

Dude... PM's down?I'll bite since you don't seem to want to put this to rest.

By saying they were given "another opportunity to win it on their own", the implication is that they failed to "win it on their own" on their first opportunity. Once that second opportunity is given, we take the first failure as a fact, and assume that everything that transpires from that point is once again "on their own". They did have to make plays "on their own" once they were given another opportunity, right?

To put it another way, consider a man who has led a life of crime and generally been a bad person. Let's say he gets shot in the head, but he lives. Well, he had an opportunity to lead a good life, and he failed. But having lived through the shooting, he has been given another opportunity to lead a good life. If he seizes that opportunity, changes his life, and becomes a good person, are you going to tell me that simply because he was given a second opportunity his decisions and life after the shooting are not "his own"? If not his, than who's? God's? The guy who shot him? Sure, they may be the onces who led to his second opportunity, but everything thereafter is in fact "on his own".

This IS semantics...

But whatever, I'm done here.

 

[thatguy]

It's not semantics. If someone not on your team helps you you're not winning it on your own. Damn, I'm a Denver homer and even I can acknowledge that.

Yes, it is semantics. Do you really want to keep this going? PM me if you want to discuss it. It is pointless to have it in this thread.

It's not pointless to have it in this thread. If so, you shouldn't make the assertion. Is there a reason you refuse to explain why it's semantics in a public venue? Afraid to look bad in front of a larger audience maybe?

It is pointless to have it here but I bit anyway. I refused to explain initially because it adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[jonessed]

You don't shouldn't get another opportunity to win it on your own. The very nature of that statement acknowledges that they did not win on their own.

Fixed. Clearly, every now and then, you do get another opportunity.

Maybe this will helpYou don't get another opportunity to win it on your own. The very nature of that statement acknowledges that they did not win on their own.

Do you really want to argue semantics? Because if you do PM me and I'll explain. Otherwise, take it easy...

Pointing out a contradiction is not semantics. You can't be given another opportunity to win on your own. Seems like a pretty simple concept and yet it keeps getting tossed out there.

Dude... PM's down?I'll bite since you don't seem to want to put this to rest.

By saying they were given "another opportunity to win it on their own", the implication is that they failed to "win it on their own" on their first opportunity. Once that second opportunity is given, we take the first failure as a fact, and assume that everything that transpires from that point is once again "on their own". They did have to make plays "on their own" once they were given another opportunity, right?

To put it another way, consider a man who has led a life of crime and generally been a bad person. Let's say he gets shot in the head, but he lives. Well, he had an opportunity to lead a good life, and he failed. But having lived through the shooting, he has been given another opportunity to lead a good life. If he seizes that opportunity, changes his life, and becomes a good person, are you going to tell me that simply because he was given a second opportunity his decisions and life after the shooting are not "his own"? If not his, than who's? God's? The guy who shot him? Sure, they may be the onces who led to his second opportunity, but everything thereafter is in fact "on his own".

This IS semantics...

But whatever, I'm done here.

Any team given enough opportunities will eventually make the required plays "on their own" . That's very different than saying, "the refs did not win that game for them, they simply gave them another opportunity to win it on their own." The first statement is obvious, the second statement is a contradiction.

 

[Despyzer]

If you think the refs gave Denver the Saints game, you are not being objective.Shall we micro-dissect every call in every game and then make hypothetical judgments about the winners? You are just being a hater. Not sure of what - the Broncos or Cutler - but your point stinks.I give you the Charger's game - not the Saints.

Wow. This is some quality work. Pointless name-calling, sub-standard rhetoric, and no substance behind your statement. Whether or not you want to "give it to me," that Saints game would have had a different outcome if that offsides penalty had been called. Come back and discuss this when you have a better contribution than the standings and a "nuh-uh!" comment.

 

[Manster]

clearly this is a case of Cutler/Rivers owners and/or DEN/SD fans arguing.

FWIW i dont like either team, but i think that DEN wins the AFC West this yr.

 

[Burning Sensation]

If you think the refs gave Denver the Saints game, you are not being objective.Shall we micro-dissect every call in every game and then make hypothetical judgments about the winners? You are just being a hater. Not sure of what - the Broncos or Cutler - but your point stinks.I give you the Charger's game - not the Saints.

Wow. This is some quality work. Pointless name-calling, sub-standard rhetoric, and no substance behind your statement. Whether or not you want to "give it to me," that Saints game would have had a different outcome if that offsides penalty had been called. Come back and discuss this when you have a better contribution than the standings and a "nuh-uh!" comment.

Yeah, your "what ifs" are a far better argument than his "nuh-uh".

 

[CHEF]

Wow, this is the most pathetic post.

Who cares who is better?

Anyone that has either of these QBs in FF should just sit back and enjoy the points no matter what the scoring system is.

Cant we all just get along?

 

[Burning Sensation]

Wow, this is the most pathetic post.

Who cares who is better?

Anyone that has either of these QBs in FF should just sit back and enjoy the points no matter what the scoring system is.

Cant we all just get along?

Wow, are you in the wrong place.

 

[Marc Levin]

If you think the refs gave Denver the Saints game, you are not being objective.Shall we micro-dissect every call in every game and then make hypothetical judgments about the winners? You are just being a hater. Not sure of what - the Broncos or Cutler - but your point stinks.I give you the Charger's game - not the Saints.

Wow. This is some quality work. Pointless name-calling, sub-standard rhetoric, and no substance behind your statement. Whether or not you want to "give it to me," that Saints game would have had a different outcome if that offsides penalty had been called. Come back and discuss this when you have a better contribution than the standings and a "nuh-uh!" comment.

Yeah, your "what ifs" are a far better argument than his "nuh-uh".

Exactly.The Saints alleged bad call did not directly lead to the Denver victory.The Chargers bad call did.Despyzer - I apologize for name-calling (though I can't imagine why accusing you of being a "hater" is "name-calling"). Regardless of that, you are not thinking clearly if you think the Saints game was a loss due to one bad call. The Broncos had taken a BEATING to the Saints all game long. They held the ball for nearly 5 minutes of the pivotal 4th quarter and were on their way in for a score when Scheffler fumbled leading to a missed 43 yarder. he Sai\nts had their chances after that and couldn't get it done. There was no ref handed victory as against the Chargers.Things happen in football games. You want to micro-dissect the Saints game and remove the victory from Cutler?

 

[Despyzer]

Regardless of that, you are not thinking clearly if you think the Saints game was a loss due to one bad call. The Broncos had taken a BEATING to the Saints all game long. They held the ball for nearly 5 minutes of the pivotal 4th quarter and were on their way in for a score when Scheffler fumbled leading to a missed 43 yarder. he Sai\nts had their chances after that and couldn't get it done. There was no ref handed victory as against the Chargers.

Had the referee called the BLATANT offsides penalty like he should have, the Saints would have had 1st and ten inside the 20 with time ticking off the clock. Maybe Gramatica misses a pooch shot (it does happen... rarely) and the Broncos hold on to win the game, but considering Martin had just nailed 8 straight FGs prior to that, it seems like something of a longshot.The entire loss cannot be blamed on this one bad call, but I think anyone can reasonably see how remote the Broncos chances were without the ref's help on that non-call.

 

[Tau837]

I like Rivers but Cutler has better scramble ability and escapability in the pocket, stronger arm, both are accurate, he's pretty much got it all. I don't know one thing Rivers does better.

I agree Cutler is a better runner/scrambler and has a stronger arm (though I think Rivers' arm strength is underrated).IMO Rivers is a better leader. (I realize many will disagree.)

Rivers makes fewer mistakes:

- Rivers turns the ball over less often (better interception rate and the same number of fumbles lost in many more snaps).

- Rivers gets sacked less often.

Who is a better leader is not something that is quantifiable. They both lead differently, and by the looks of it, both have the respect of their teammates. Cutler is less outspoken than Rivers, but he certainly is THE leader of that team.Last 19 games (gonna throw out Cutler's rookie season since it's not really fair to compare that to Rivers first season as a starter being as it was his 3rd year in the league): Rivers 17 INTs, 545 attempts, Cutler, 16 INTs, 575 attempts.

And others have already mentioned that Jay is simply not getting sacked this season... His offensive line last season was decimated by injuries and therefore never really found a groove as a unit. His offensive line this season has been very, very good.

No method of comparing them is perfect, but this method (throwing out 2006) conveniently leaves out Rivers' Pro Bowl season, when he had only 9 interceptions in 460 attempts.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Regardless of that, you are not thinking clearly if you think the Saints game was a loss due to one bad call. The Broncos had taken a BEATING to the Saints all game long. They held the ball for nearly 5 minutes of the pivotal 4th quarter and were on their way in for a score when Scheffler fumbled leading to a missed 43 yarder. he Sai\nts had their chances after that and couldn't get it done. There was no ref handed victory as against the Chargers.

Had the referee called the BLATANT offsides penalty like he should have, the Saints would have had 1st and ten inside the 20 with time ticking off the clock. Maybe Gramatica misses a pooch shot (it does happen... rarely) and the Broncos hold on to win the game, but considering Martin had just nailed 8 straight FGs prior to that, it seems like something of a longshot.The entire loss cannot be blamed on this one bad call, but I think anyone can reasonably see how remote the Broncos chances were without the ref's help on that non-call.

If this happened, if that happened....guess what, those things didnt happen. The Broncos are 3-0 and the Chargers are 1-2.

 

[Tau837]

Regardless of that, you are not thinking clearly if you think the Saints game was a loss due to one bad call. The Broncos had taken a BEATING to the Saints all game long. They held the ball for nearly 5 minutes of the pivotal 4th quarter and were on their way in for a score when Scheffler fumbled leading to a missed 43 yarder. he Sai\nts had their chances after that and couldn't get it done. There was no ref handed victory as against the Chargers.

Had the referee called the BLATANT offsides penalty like he should have, the Saints would have had 1st and ten inside the 20 with time ticking off the clock. Maybe Gramatica misses a pooch shot (it does happen... rarely) and the Broncos hold on to win the game, but considering Martin had just nailed 8 straight FGs prior to that, it seems like something of a longshot.The entire loss cannot be blamed on this one bad call, but I think anyone can reasonably see how remote the Broncos chances were without the ref's help on that non-call.

If this happened, if that happened....guess what, those things didnt happen. The Broncos are 3-0 and the Chargers are 1-2.

Well, what may have been lost in some of this discussion was that it was about comparing Rivers and Cutler. The point of this discussion about Denver's lucky wins is that Cutler does not deserve credit over Rivers for this season's record. Rivers has played just as well as Cutler, he just hasn't had the benefit of help relating to two very late and critical calls/non-calls that helped his team to 2 lucky wins.

 

[Marc Levin]

Regardless of that, you are not thinking clearly if you think the Saints game was a loss due to one bad call. The Broncos had taken a BEATING to the Saints all game long. They held the ball for nearly 5 minutes of the pivotal 4th quarter and were on their way in for a score when Scheffler fumbled leading to a missed 43 yarder. he Sai\nts had their chances after that and couldn't get it done. There was no ref handed victory as against the Chargers.

Had the referee called the BLATANT offsides penalty like he should have, the Saints would have had 1st and ten inside the 20 with time ticking off the clock. Maybe Gramatica misses a pooch shot (it does happen... rarely) and the Broncos hold on to win the game, but considering Martin had just nailed 8 straight FGs prior to that, it seems like something of a longshot.The entire loss cannot be blamed on this one bad call, but I think anyone can reasonably see how remote the Broncos chances were without the ref's help on that non-call.

If this happened, if that happened....guess what, those things didnt happen. The Broncos are 3-0 and the Chargers are 1-2.

Well, what may have been lost in some of this discussion was that it was about comparing Rivers and Cutler. The point of this discussion about Denver's lucky wins is that Cutler does not deserve credit over Rivers for this season's record. Rivers has played just as well as Cutler, he just hasn't had the benefit of help relating to two very late and critical calls/non-calls that helped his team to 2 lucky wins.

1) Complete agreement that team victories are not worthy discussion when comparing these two players' fantasy worth2) NEITHER win was "lucky" - they played with, and mostly dominated, opposing defenses. Re: the Saints game, that "what if" game is going down a no win alley. The 43-yarder was makable for Grammatica, and he missed. And there is no way to know whether the Broncos could have, had they needed to drive and win, called better plays and driven down for a GW FG on their last drive rather htan running out the clock. It is not worth discussing. Re: the Chargers game, that was not "lucky" either. They benefited from a bad call by earning another down, but they converted both a TD and 2-pt conversion against what is supposed to be a good defense.

 

[Tau837]

Well, what may have been lost in some of this discussion was that it was about comparing Rivers and Cutler. The point of this discussion about Denver's lucky wins is that Cutler does not deserve credit over Rivers for this season's record. Rivers has played just as well as Cutler, he just hasn't had the benefit of help relating to two very late and critical calls/non-calls that helped his team to 2 lucky wins.

1) Complete agreement that team victories are not worthy discussion when comparing these two players' fantasy worth.

Well, the purpose of the thread is to compare their fantasy worth. However, some of the comments have delved into non-fantasy discussion IMO.

2) NEITHER win was "lucky" - they played with, and mostly dominated, opposing defenses.

OK, perhaps instead of lucky, we can just call them undeserved. At least the win over the Chargers. And how well Denver's offense played in a given game is not the sole determinant of how deserving Denver was in winning a game. They have defense and special teams units, too, and their defense has been awful. And, as we have seen, referees have also influenced the outcomes of their games, independent of how well Denver's units have played.

Re: the Saints game, that "what if" game is going down a no win alley. The 43-yarder was makable for Grammatica, and he missed. And there is no way to know whether the Broncos could have, had they needed to drive and win, called better plays and driven down for a GW FG on their last drive rather htan running out the clock. It is not worth discussing.

Please go back and reread my post about that game. Had the penalty been called in the Saints game and they went on to successfully kick a closer FG, there would have been no time remaining for a subsequent Denver drive to win the game. Yes, that is a what if scenario, but that's better than the way you describe it here, since if Denver needed to drive to win there would have been no time left for that.

Re: the Chargers game, that was not "lucky" either. They benefited from a bad call by earning another down, but they converted both a TD and 2-pt conversion against what is supposed to be a good defense.

Like I said, if you don't like the term lucky, then we can go with undeserved for that win. Cutler fumbled and the game was over if it was called correctly. Period.

 

[Skanker]

Cutler and Rivers and both pimps...and I have them both on my team.

 

[Sweet Love]

Cutler and Rivers and both pimps...and I have them both on my team.

I've got them both too in one of my leagues. What I find most interesting is that EVERYONE wants Cutler and no one wants Rivers...eventhough they could have him cheaper. I most likely am going to move Cutler for a WR, because I think while a valid arguement, both have no reason why they cannot stay on pace with one another.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Cutler and Rivers and both pimps...and I have them both on my team.

I've got them both too in one of my leagues. What I find most interesting is that EVERYONE wants Cutler and no one wants Rivers...eventhough they could have him cheaper. I most likely am going to move Cutler for a WR, because I think while a valid arguement, both have no reason why they cannot stay on pace with one another.

I am in a similar situation in a dynasty league. I have both, and could move one for a WR, however, i want to keep Cutler. It doesnt look like i will get nearly as much for Rivers. I will probably just hold onto both.

 

[jonessed]

Regardless of that, you are not thinking clearly if you think the Saints game was a loss due to one bad call. The Broncos had taken a BEATING to the Saints all game long. They held the ball for nearly 5 minutes of the pivotal 4th quarter and were on their way in for a score when Scheffler fumbled leading to a missed 43 yarder. he Sai\nts had their chances after that and couldn't get it done. There was no ref handed victory as against the Chargers.

Had the referee called the BLATANT offsides penalty like he should have, the Saints would have had 1st and ten inside the 20 with time ticking off the clock. Maybe Gramatica misses a pooch shot (it does happen... rarely) and the Broncos hold on to win the game, but considering Martin had just nailed 8 straight FGs prior to that, it seems like something of a longshot.The entire loss cannot be blamed on this one bad call, but I think anyone can reasonably see how remote the Broncos chances were without the ref's help on that non-call.

If this happened, if that happened....guess what, those things didnt happen. The Broncos are 3-0 and the Chargers are 1-2.

Well, what may have been lost in some of this discussion was that it was about comparing Rivers and Cutler. The point of this discussion about Denver's lucky wins is that Cutler does not deserve credit over Rivers for this season's record. Rivers has played just as well as Cutler, he just hasn't had the benefit of help relating to two very late and critical calls/non-calls that helped his team to 2 lucky wins.

1) Complete agreement that team victories are not worthy discussion when comparing these two players' fantasy worth2) NEITHER win was "lucky" - they played with, and mostly dominated, opposing defenses. Re: the Saints game, that "what if" game is going down a no win alley. The 43-yarder was makable for Grammatica, and he missed. And there is no way to know whether the Broncos could have, had they needed to drive and win, called better plays and driven down for a GW FG on their last drive rather htan running out the clock. It is not worth discussing.

Re: the Chargers game, that was not "lucky" either. They benefited from a bad call by earning another down, but they converted both a TD and 2-pt conversion against what is supposed to be a good defense.

They won because a normally great referee made a terrible error and the replay equipment malfunctioned. Two things that probably haven't even occurred in the same season much less the same game. If that's not lucky we clearly need to redefine the word.