You're really going to excuse 4 INTs with that argument? The running game was atrocious, too, but that was just a horrible game by Chad. This is coming from someone who agreed with you, in part, just a few posts ago, too.
I understand they were dogs. Penny looked like the weakest link in that game for the Dolphins though.
We really need to change the name of the TrashTalking Forum to the Applebees Forum. The Applebees affair is referenced at least once a week, but it never gets old.
He's not excused, he played terrible but he had no help against a damn good defense. You guys act like he sucked against the denver defense.
That's the point though. He always does well against defenses like Denver. It's the good defenses he can never attack. They're too fast and they attack him and the running game.
Rothlisberger played great against that Baltimore D extending plays in clutch situations and attacking it. He made plays that Pennington couldn't dream of. That Baltimore D was great. I honestly don't remember the Tenn game, but I don't recall them doing much.
Dude, listen to yousrself. Do you not grasp that 11 of the best 12 teams get shut down in the playoffs every year? It's not a trend with one guy, it's the way the whole sport works. If your point is that Chad Pennington hasn't won a Super Bowl and isn't going to the Hall of Fame, I think we'd all agree with you. This notion that he was somehow holding the Jets back, however, is completely assinine. Look at their record and how far they've gone in this decade with and without him, that's all we are saying. On top of that, they cut him, he goes to a division rival and takes them from 1-15 to 11-5 and division champs, beating us to finish it off. Now there's a trend, but you miss it because you choose to miss it.
Chad will hold any team back from winning a Super Bowl, but is a very good QB if you aspire only to reach the playoffs.
This post is spot on. I think a big part of the argument is the unspoken expectation of what a QB should be. There's a reason why Favre will be remembered as one of the game's greatest despite the high number of INTs. He's a gunslinger. Most football fans view the QB position as the realm of big arms and physical tools. Chad's more of the cerebral type by far. You can't argue with the results, but people are always going to get more excited by a QB who can put the game on his shoulders by making all of the throws late in a game against a tired defense. That wasn't Chad.
My point, and I've said it probably hundreds of times is that he cannot attack top defenses and cannot win the games that matter because of it. I don't think I can say it any more clear. He's great at consistently beating average -> below average teams. With the right schedule that will get you in the playoffs. He's done very well at doing exactly that, but his limitations prevent him from winning the games that matter in January. This isn't anything i haven't said before.
He won't exactly hold a team back, but he doesn't add the element of potential savior that most people look for. If your team can grab the lead, a la a Tampa or Baltimore, he can manage the hell out of it.
You really think getting to the playoffs and winning in the playoffs is that big of a difference? I don't, and it's not like he's never won there, games come down to all kinds of factors in single elimination playoffs. If you can get there four times and win twice, you're probably good enough to get through them, but it helps to get some breaks and not always be the underdog.
Ben was 16 of 33 w/ 1 TD. I wouldn't call that great and Pitt's D scored a TD so Ben only led his O to 16 points. He didn't tear about the raven D and ben is an elite QB, Chad is not.
The performance was great because he made clutch plays against a great defense when the game was on the line. He had to escape the jaws of that defense clamping down on him to make something happen when everything was on the line and did. The stats don't look great but the performance was.
And that right there is the most cogent argument against Chad that you can make. He's just not a savior. Ben has only had one season with great stats, and that Pitt D had to carry him for much of the season (poor pass protection notwithstanding), but as I said above, he's regarded as an elite QB because of what he can do with the game on the line.
HUGE difference. As I have said before, to win a SB means that at some point in the playoffs the QB put the team on his back, made the clutch plays and won the game for his club. Chad is not capable of that. I wish he was, but, in my opinion, he is not. Also as I have said before, as a fan you get tired of watching a QB bump against his ceiling over and over again no matter how "successful" he has made the club. That is when it is worth the risk of jettisoning a good QB for the change at getting a great one (even though "a great one" isn't guaranteed.)
I agree with this. It's hard to argue with the facts. Chad never was going to lead a team to the Super Bowl, but he typically had good regular seasons. Against top defenses, he fails. It all depends on what your goals are. If your goal is the Super Bowl, you don't want Chad as your QB. It's as simple as that. Was Chad better than Favre in the 2008 regular season? Yes. Would I rather have Favre in the playoffs than Chad? Also yes (although I never was in favor of the Favre move in the first place).
Because his team won the game. At the end of the day, the QB position is judged on wins...period. They get the credit for the win and the blame for the loss. That is the way it goes. Ben is a two-time SB winning QB. Do you think people remember that the Steelers basically won SBXL in spite of his performance? Only die-hards.
