Rivers is a STUD

[Cameltosis]

Couldnt agree more. He might have the heart needed to win in the NFL, but I think Id rather have a healthy Volek than a gimpy Rivers. If we were talking about Manning, Brady, or any other stud QB, Id rather have a gimpy stud, but cmon... This is Rivers. He is far from a stud. Im sure the coaches had a say in him playing as well, but IMO he shouldnt have played. At least not the whole game.

 

I am not a Chargers or a Rivers fan, but I gained some respect for the kid. That being said do you really think it is his responsiblity to determine who the QB should be? Its his job to get himself in the best shape he can to compete. Its the coaches job to decide who takes the field. Everyone watching that game could see he was far less than 100%. I'm sure Norv saw it too. He must have seen something else to lead him to believe Rivers gave them the best chance to win. You cant blame the kid for this.

[whomper]

Im not sure why we talk about Philip Rivers so much..If LT wasnt on his team he would be David Carr right now.

[peepinmofo]

I am not a Chargers or a Rivers fan, but I gained some respect for the kid. That being said do you really think it is his responsiblity to determine who the QB should be? Its his job to get himself in the best shape he can to compete. Its the coaches job to decide who takes the field. Everyone watching that game could see he was far less than 100%. I'm sure Norv saw it too. He must have seen something else to lead him to believe Rivers gave them the best chance to win. You cant blame the kid for this.

 

Perhaps he told the coach he was fine, and wasnt being bothered at all despite a little pain. IMO it isnt just Rivers fault, its Turners fault too... (Norv). But Rivers should have just admitted to everyone, himself included, that he wasnt the man for the job that afternoon. He might have played through pain, but that doesnt score TDs. Perhaps a more mobile QB might have helped with at LEAST one TD...

[Cameltosis]

Perhaps he told the coach he was fine, and wasnt being bothered at all despite a little pain. IMO it isnt just Rivers fault, its Turners fault too... (Norv). But Rivers should have just admitted to everyone, himself included, that he wasnt the man for the job that afternoon. He might have played through pain, but that doesnt score TDs. Perhaps a more mobile QB might have helped with at LEAST one TD...

 

I thought it was pretty obviuos he was injured more than "being bothered". And I am pretty sure Norv knew the extent of his injury. And I still think this is Norv's call. I would rather have a QB that I have to drag off the field than one who opts out. And I am still not sure that Turner didnt make the right call leaving him in there. His determination had to be contagious.

[Furd]

Rivers played on knee with ACL 'totally gone'

 

Don't doubt that I love this kid...to pieces

 

Fixed

[rebdog]

I admire the effort for sure, but question whether or not it was a selfish move. One look at his stats and the score and one has to respectably wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the Bolts to go with Volek.

 

Just sayin'.

 

did you even watch the game?

Brady had a weak game.; threw three picks. you want to go with Cassel?

sure lets go with Volek who's thrown maybe 20 passes all year in the AFC Championship game. Rivers was clutch not only for going on one leg but because of the way he played. and remember, no LT and Gates at 50%. don't put it all on the QB. there's 11 guys out there. what they accomplished they did as a team. and they lost as a team.

[rebdog]

LT would hurt his team by playing but Rivers didn't? LT said a 100% back up was better than he is at 50%.

 

Being tough but hurting your team isn't a good idea. Favre has done it too.

 

It is tough but I think Volek would have played better.

 

RBs run. QBs throw. there's the difference.

...and its much easier for a RB to step in and play.

i don't get the LT debate. he was hurt. if a RB has a bum knee then he's not much use.

if a QB has a bum knee, he can still throw. apart from the downfield pick, i don't see where Rivers was a problem.

[Avernus]

I thought Rivers was going to be a top QB in the NFL...but he played like chit this season...

 

however, when the playoffs arrived...he played on the level I expected him to all season...

 

I didn't draft him anyways...but planned to if the spot was right..

[Bronco Billy]

sure lets go with Volek who's thrown maybe 20 passes all year in the AFC Championship game.

 

The result speaks for itself. SD lost because it couldn't finish drives. You aren't going to beat NE by kicking nothing but FGs all game. If Rivers had been removed and Volek inserted, the worst thing that could have happened is that SD would be exactly where it is today, watching the SB with 29 other teams. NE was vulnerable exactly because of the way the SD D played and because Brady showed emphatically that he is indeed mortal. SD pissed away any chance they had at winning the game when Rivers couldn't get them into the end zone. Personally I think - from watching the game - that Rivers was very limited and was also gunshy trying to protect his bad wheel.

[Pope Flick]

did you even watch the game?

Brady had a weak game.; threw three picks. you want to go with Cassel?

sure lets go with Volek who's thrown maybe 20 passes all year in the AFC Championship game. Rivers was clutch not only for going on one leg but because of the way he played. and remember, no LT and Gates at 50%. don't put it all on the QB. there's 11 guys out there. what they accomplished they did as a team. and they lost as a team.

 

I did. Brady had a bad game, playing hurt and they still won. He threw balls that made it into the endzone.

 

Did you watch the game? Did you see who won? Did you see which QB could NOT get the balls in the endzone?

 

Not to mention that Volek looked good one week earlier on the road against the Colts. You can't say the same of Cassel, who has basically never been seen, so your analogy is weak chit.

 

 

So much for a 'respectful' submission.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Pope Flick

[Hat Trick]

LMMFAO

 

[rebdog]

I did. Brady had a bad game, playing hurt and they still won. He threw balls that made it into the endzone.

 

Did you watch the game? Did you see who won? Did you see which QB could NOT get the balls in the endzone?

 

So much for a 'respectful' submission.

 

again, its a team game. you notice NO ONE has beaten NE this year? did you see that SD's two best offensive players were either out or very much injured? but you choose to blame Rivers entirely for the outcome.

just like always, the QB gets too much credit and too much blame. you think Brady won that game by himself? Faulk made a couple of ridiculous catches to bail him out. but that's part of being a team.

i've seen every Charger game this year. Rivers isn't perfect, but he's the leader you want your QB to be. win or lose. you don't pull those guys. you really think the timing is gonna be there with Volek and the WRs? and in such a big game you're gonna risk it all with the backup? imagine what everyone would be saying if we started Volek and got pounded and then Rivers said "i could've gone in there"?

 

ya, i saw who won. but i saw a lot more than that too.

[MTSuper7]

I admire the effort for sure, but question whether or not it was a selfish move. One look at his stats and the score and one has to respectably wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the Bolts to go with Volek.

 

Just sayin'.

 

You can only blame the coaches for that. Rivers wanted to play. If he was ineffective because of his health, they should have yanked him. My guess is that there is very little confidence in Volek and that Rivers was playing well enough to keep in there.

[Pope Flick]

again, its a team game. you notice NO ONE has beaten NE this year? did you see that SD's two best offensive players were either out or very much injured? but you choose to blame Rivers entirely for the outcome.

just like always, the QB gets too much credit and too much blame. you think Brady won that game by himself? Faulk made a couple of ridiculous catches to bail him out. but that's part of being a team.

i've seen every Charger game this year. Rivers isn't perfect, but he's the leader you want your QB to be. win or lose. you don't pull those guys. you really think the timing is gonna be there with Volek and the WRs? and in such a big game you're gonna risk it all with the backup? imagine what everyone would be saying if we started Volek and got pounded and then Rivers said "i could've gone in there"?

 

ya, i saw who won. but i saw a lot more than that too.

 

 

Good for you. You haven't changed my mind. That's my opinion on the matter and if you don't like it I have more.

[Pope Flick]

...there's no comeback for that.

 

 

 

 

- that's a paraphrase of a Groucho Marx quote, which is why it's so good.

[Bronco Billy]

i've seen every Charger game this year. Rivers isn't perfect, but he's the leader you want your QB to be. win or lose.

 

If your priority is playing "your" guy, then I agree with you. If your priority is to win the game, I couldn't disagree more. Rivers was clearly protecting himself from contact - I'm guessing because of his hurt leg. He wasn't stepping into throws - and his arm ain't the strongest in the leg to begin with - and he was dumping the ball early when he left the pocket rather than allowing his receivers to clear. His injury affected his play.

 

But if your philosophy is playing him no matter what - win or lose, well, you shouldn't be bothered by the loss, then. Winning the game clearly isn't your top priority.

 

Look, if both guys are 100%, I agree, Rivers is the guy you want leading the team. But he wasn't and it was obviously affecting the way he played the game. Volek may not be starting material in the NFL, but he looked comfortable & competent against IND, and he has thrown 4 TDs in a game twice in a relief role during his career, something a healthy Rivers hasn't done yet in his career even when he's 100%.

 

Sticking with Rivers lead to a foregone conclusion - NE was going to win the game. With Volek in, at least SD had a puncher's chance at winning the game.

[KSUChiefsTarheelFan]

I give him kudos for givin er a go. But was he the best guy for the job? I will take Volek at 100% over a Rivers that was 60%. His throws looked good at times. But he had no mobility, which is his best asset, and when his throws are more effective. Volek has proven to be a decent backup that makes good decisions. One game left and then you get time to re-coop for the SB if you make it. I like the fact that Rivers had the heart to play, but I don't think it was the best decision on the head coach's part to keep playing him.

[MTSuper7]

The result speaks for itself. SD lost because it couldn't finish drives. You aren't going to beat NE by kicking nothing but FGs all game. If Rivers had been removed and Volek inserted, the worst thing that could have happened is that SD would be exactly where it is today, watching the SB with 29 other teams. NE was vulnerable exactly because of the way the SD D played and because Brady showed emphatically that he is indeed mortal. SD pissed away any chance they had at winning the game when Rivers couldn't get them into the end zone. Personally I think - from watching the game - that Rivers was very limited and was also gunshy trying to protect his bad wheel.

 

Any chance at all that, just possibly, New England's defense in the red zone deserves credit for clamping down? And we'll have no idea what Volek would have done if Rivers was benched, so to make any assumptions is pointless. For all we know, the Chargers wouldn't have even gotten into FG range with Volek playing. I don't disagree that Rivers' play seemed affected by his injuries, but it's not like they weren't moving the ball with him in there. Saying, in hindsight, that they might as well have put Volek in because they lost with Rivers in there means absolultely nothing.

 

That's almost as silly as saying that Green Bay should have had Aaron Rodgers in there at the end of the NFC Championship game since Favre blew it with that INT in overtime and it was obvious he wasn't playing well.

[rebdog]

I give him kudos for givin er a go. But was he the best guy for the job? I will take Volek at 100% over a Rivers that was 60%. His throws looked good at times. But he had no mobility, which is his best asset, and when his throws are more effective. Volek has proven to be a decent backup that makes good decisions. One game left and then you get time to re-coop for the SB if you make it. I like the fact that Rivers had the heart to play, but I don't think it was the best decision on the head coach's part to keep playing him.

 

i was gonna leave this thread alone because i've said my piece. but if you think Rivers' mobility is his best asset than you're sorrily mistaken.

don't tell me this then at the same time say you know anything about Rivers' play.

Edited January 22, 2008 by rebdog

[MTSuper7]

I give him kudos for givin er a go. But was he the best guy for the job? I will take Volek at 100% over a Rivers that was 60%. His throws looked good at times. But he had no mobility, which is his best asset, and when his throws are more effective. Volek has proven to be a decent backup that makes good decisions. One game left and then you get time to re-coop for the SB if you make it. I like the fact that Rivers had the heart to play, but I don't think it was the best decision on the head coach's part to keep playing him.

 

Yeah, those Chargers coaches must be morons for not starting Volek. And where do we get 60%

 

I find it hilarious that people think Billy Volek is pro-bowl caliber because he had a couple of good games throwing TDs to Drew Bennett in Tennesee a couple of years ago and because he "got the job done" against Indy. There is a reason why Billy Volek is a backup QB and why the coaches left Rivers in there for the biggest game of their year.

Edited January 22, 2008 by MTSuper7

[KSUChiefsTarheelFan]

i was gonna leave this thread alone because i've said my piece. but if you think Rivers' mobility is his best asset than you're sorrily mistaken.

don't tell me this then at the same time say you know anything about Rivers' play.

His arm strength is better on the run when his knee is healthy. That's all I was saying. By the way...I live just outside of Raleigh. Watched him play with the Wolfpack WHENEVER they were on TV.

[Bronco Billy]

That's almost as silly as saying that Green Bay should have had Aaron Rodgers in there at the end of the NFC Championship game since Favre blew it with that INT in overtime and it was obvious he wasn't playing well.

 

No, it's not, but to go in that direction shows how weak your argument is.

 

By the 2nd quarter it was very obvious that Rivers was struggling to get the ball downfield with significant zip. NE was playing run and using a soft secondary that gave some large seams, obviously seeing that Rivers was struggling getting the ball downfield in a hurry. NE turned the SD O 1-dimensional and forced Rivers to get the ball into the end zone, especially when the field got compacted in the red zone and coverage tightened. He couldn't do it, plain & simple. NE was willing to give up FGs on those drives, knowing that SD couldn't beat them that way. NE was able to play it safe because of Rivers' injury, knowing that there was little to no risk of losing playing it that way. Hell, the only reason the game was so close is because SD's D was so damn good, forcing brady to turnover the ball. It was a damn shame to waste that kind of effort.

 

If your man-love of Rivers is that great that you can't see that his injury affectedc his play, and consequently greatly affected SD's capability of winning the game, that's fine. Just say so. But to make analogies that border on the absurd isn't helping your cause.

[KSUChiefsTarheelFan]

Yeah, those Chargers coaches must be morons for not starting Volek. And where do we get 60%

 

I find it hilarious that people think Billy Volek is pro-bowl caliber because he had a couple of good games throwing TDs to Drew Bennett in Tennesee a couple of years ago and because he "got the job done" against Indy. There is a reason why Billy Volek is a backup QB and why the coaches left Rivers in there for the biggest game of their year.

Norv Turner is an idiot. That's all I am saying. Marty should have never been fired. And have you ever heard of Jeff Hostetler? Back up with a Super Bowl Ring. Volek Gave them the beter chance to win. Bottom line....

[KSUChiefsTarheelFan]

That's almost as silly as saying that Green Bay should have had Aaron Rodgers in there at the end of the NFC Championship game since Favre blew it with that INT in overtime and it was obvious he wasn't playing well.

 

WOW! Did you just compare Brett Favre and Phillip Rivers? Brett most likely would have done a better job on a bum knee. And he has been there before. Almost 300 consecutive games played. C'mon Brett deserves a little more respect than that doesn't he?

[MTSuper7]

No, it's not, but to go in that direction shows how weak your argument is.

 

By the 2nd quarter it was very obvious that Rivers was struggling to get the ball downfield with significant zip. NE was playing run and using a soft secondary that gave some large seams, obviously seeing that Rivers was struggling getting the ball downfield in a hurry. NE turned the SD O 1-dimensional and forced Rivers to get the ball into the end zone, especially when the field got compacted in the red zone and coverage tightened. He couldn't do it, plain & simple. NE was willing to give up FGs on those drives, knowing that SD couldn't beat them that way. NE was able to play it safe because of Rivers' injury, knowing that there was little to no risk of losing playing it that way. Hell, the only reason the game was so close is because SD's D was so damn good, forcing brady to turnover the ball. It was a damn shame to waste that kind of effort.

 

If your man-love of Rivers is that great that you can't see that his injury affectedc his play, and consequently greatly affected SD's capability of winning the game, that's fine. Just say so. But to make analogies that border on the absurd isn't helping your cause.

 

You certainly are assumptive, aren't you?

 

My analogy was absurd to get my point across (and it did help my cause). My point has nothing to do with my opinion on Philip Rivers (I'm a Broncos fan, so that should tell you how I likely feel). It is easy to play Tuesday morning QB and say "they should have done this" or "why didn't they do that". But we don't know if Volek would have been more effective. We don't. As the game was unfolding, maybe the coaches did make a mistake not turning the reigns over to Volek, because I already agreed with you that Rivers' injury was affecting his play. We can certainly question the decision, but we can't assume Volek would have played better. In fact, since the coaching staff knows each player better than any of us could hope to, we can only deduce that the coaching staff had more confidence in Rivers than Volek.