{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by CAMMCAM:
1/11/2015 5:36:58 PM
1
[quote]Having a better statistical year doesn't mean he is a better QB.[/quote]Yes, yes it does actually.
This isn't 2011.
It's 2015.
Having a better statistical year most certainly means they are the better QB.
That's like saying (assuming Rodgers is statistically better next year) well, Romo was statistically better last year so, he's the best.
English
-
That's nice. You can believe that stats determine who is best. I do not. Don't care to get in a discussion over who is best QB when it involves a guy with one playoff win in his career. I would like to see Tony do it but not sure if he can.
-
So Russell Wilson is the best QB because he won the Super Bowl last year.. Got it.
-
Did I say rings were important? I said consistency. Romo hasn't come up big in big games yet. Rodgers and Bray have. You believe in stats I do not believe stats tell the whole story. To each their own.
-
Just some food for thought: Romo and Rodgers are the two highest rated passers in NFL history with Romo edging out Rodgers by one point this year, so....
