Because if they lose it is an absolute certainty that he made the wrong call. I mean a what... 5 Million dollar salary isn't enough to expect him to make the right call?
Because if they lose it is an absolute certainty that he made the wrong call. I mean a what... 5 Million dollar salary isn't enough to expect him to make the right call?
FWIW I would go with Manning. What's the point of having a 20 million dollar QB if you're not gonna use him in the playoffs?
Just like in "Any Given Sunday?"
Belichick would never expect them to start the untested third QB. Perfect Attacko-style catastrophism.
Nantz is a smarmy old white guy who openly refuses to do his job - reporting - when it involves sports figures he's friendly with. He's scum. Meanwhile, Eagle is widely regarded as one of the top commentators for both basketball and football. Simms vs. Fouts is at the very least a wash, and probably tilts slightly in favor of Fouts because of just how brain-dead Simms is.
That sounds like a quotation from the old SNL bit about Fouts rather than an appreciation of where he's at right now. Look: even considering that, he's not good. He's mediocre at best compared to the rest of the NFL color commentariat, and considering his peers that's not a good place to be. But it is almost universally acknowledged by even the most casual NFL observers that Simms is the worst. (For the less-casual, there's things like this.) And if Fouts isn't as bad as Simms, and Eagle isn't even remotely as bad as Nantz, Eagle-Fouts is a better team than Nantz-Simms.
Belichick would never expect them to start the untested third QB. Perfect Attacko-style catastrophism.
FYI a
