NFL 2013 Part 3

Off Topic
282

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WWEAttitude wrote:
Im not a big football fan but can sum1 explain why denver is sucking so bad? They supposed to havebest offense in the league[/quote]

But the game is played to win, and Manning simply isn’t a winner. He’s a fucking loser in the postseason, and when it comes to the great QBs, the ONLY measuring stick is how well they play in the postseason. Manning falls FAR short of the other great QBs in that respect; I’d take Brady over Manning without a second thought, and it’s games like this one today that should embarrass anyone who has ever used Manning and Montana in the same sentence. Montana played a #1-ranked defense in the Super Bowl once. He put 55 points on the board. Manning put up 8.

[/quote]

Dont agree with this, even with this game Manning is one of the best of all time, its not like he never won a superbowl, and its not like he never beat Tom Brady.

But lets discuss your boy Joe Montana…one of the best, maybe the best of all time…HOWEVER if memory serves me correctly Montanat GOT HIS ASS HANDED TO HIM against the NY GIANTS 49-3 in a Playoff game…Does that not count? Montana was intercepted 2 times in the second quarter before he mercifully was put out to pasture…but hey its Joe Montana so we wont mention that game.

All Im trying to say is that all players even all time greats have horrible days. Does this tarnish Manning’s “legacy” I guess a bit, but he is still one of the best qbs of all time…

283

Has anyone else seen the 30 for 30 mockumentary that Frank Caliendo did about Sherman? If you get a chance watch it. Was extremely funny.

284

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I agree with Boomer:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/video/nfl/20140203/nfl-boomer-seahawks-super-bowl.sportsillustrated/[/quote]

Also, the only reason Denver scored their 8 points is because Seattle clearly went into a prevent to make sure Denver wasn’t going to score quickly. I think the Denver final score might easily have been zero at the end of the game.

285

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The pick 6, I can see not being super upset about, the guy hit his arm, but when Thomas fumbled… Denver fans had to just breakdown and smash their TV’s at that point. [/quote]

I think the Harvin return to open the second half was probably the point where I just completely went WTF?? And I still cant figure out where Mannings stat line came from completing 34-49 because it barely looked like they stayed on the field and it sure didn’t look like a 70% completion game. I really wanted Kam Chancellor to get the MVP. [/quote]

It is because the Seahawks limited YAC. I think it was around like 3.5 for Denver. Denver runs a lot of short crossing routes and rely on YAC to provide the majority of their yardage. They finally went against a team that swarms the ball and can put big hits on big receivers. Chancellor laying the wood on Thomas set the tone for the defense. Denver receivers never had a chance to go anywhere after getting the ball.[/quote]
That plus the receivers on Denver are not physical at all. [/quote]
I disagree, besides Welker the other receivers are big and physical off the line. [/quote]

I dunno. There have been several times throughout the season that I though they could have fought there way back to the ball but played for the penalty and were content to remain out of position. Decker seems to be the worst at this although Thomas has his moments as well.
[/quote]
Yup. I don’t see Decker being on the team next year. I think some team will offer him more money than he is worth and he won’t live up to it. [/quote]

Unfortunately they have stated it’s a priority to resign Decker and are looking at letting Moreno go (mainly because Moreno didn’t do squat till it was a contract year).

Thomas was pretty solid all year, Decker on the other hand spent most of the games trying to get a pass interference call.

286

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The pick 6, I can see not being super upset about, the guy hit his arm, but when Thomas fumbled… Denver fans had to just breakdown and smash their TV’s at that point. [/quote]

I think the Harvin return to open the second half was probably the point where I just completely went WTF?? And I still cant figure out where Mannings stat line came from completing 34-49 because it barely looked like they stayed on the field and it sure didn’t look like a 70% completion game. I really wanted Kam Chancellor to get the MVP. [/quote]

It is because the Seahawks limited YAC. I think it was around like 3.5 for Denver. Denver runs a lot of short crossing routes and rely on YAC to provide the majority of their yardage. They finally went against a team that swarms the ball and can put big hits on big receivers. Chancellor laying the wood on Thomas set the tone for the defense. Denver receivers never had a chance to go anywhere after getting the ball.[/quote]
That plus the receivers on Denver are not physical at all. [/quote]
I disagree, besides Welker the other receivers are big and physical off the line. [/quote]

I dunno. There have been several times throughout the season that I though they could have fought there way back to the ball but played for the penalty and were content to remain out of position. Decker seems to be the worst at this although Thomas has his moments as well.
[/quote]
Yup. I don’t see Decker being on the team next year. I think some team will offer him more money than he is worth and he won’t live up to it. [/quote]

Unfortunately they have stated it’s a priority to resign Decker and are looking at letting Moreno go (mainly because Moreno didn’t do squat till it was a contract year).

Thomas was pretty solid all year, Decker on the other hand spent most of the games trying to get a pass interference call.[/quote]

Who in the hell will carry the ball when every other running back puts in on the ground a couple times. Ball is a good runner but an abysmal ball carrier.

287

[quote]MattyXL wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WWEAttitude wrote:
Im not a big football fan but can sum1 explain why denver is sucking so bad? They supposed to havebest offense in the league[/quote]

But the game is played to win, and Manning simply isn’t a winner. He’s a fucking loser in the postseason, and when it comes to the great QBs, the ONLY measuring stick is how well they play in the postseason. Manning falls FAR short of the other great QBs in that respect; I’d take Brady over Manning without a second thought, and it’s games like this one today that should embarrass anyone who has ever used Manning and Montana in the same sentence. Montana played a #1-ranked defense in the Super Bowl once. He put 55 points on the board. Manning put up 8.

[/quote]

Dont agree with this, even with this game Manning is one of the best of all time, its not like he never won a superbowl, and its not like he never beat Tom Brady.

But lets discuss your boy Joe Montana…one of the best, maybe the best of all time…HOWEVER if memory serves me correctly Montanat GOT HIS ASS HANDED TO HIM against the NY GIANTS 49-3 in a Playoff game…Does that not count? Montana was intercepted 2 times in the second quarter before he mercifully was put out to pasture…but hey its Joe Montana so we wont mention that game.

All Im trying to say is that all players even all time greats have horrible days. Does this tarnish Manning’s “legacy” I guess a bit, but he is still one of the best qbs of all time…
[/quote]

That game was the exception to the norm with Montana in the playoffs. Yes, he had three straight one-and-dones in the playoffs (85-87), including a game he didn’t finish and a loss at home as the #1 seed.

He also has a career postseason rating of 95.6 to Manning’s 89.2, which was accomplished in a much less friendly offensive era. His Super Bowl career rating is 127.8, which dwarfs Manning’s 81. In 1989 Montana faced a #1 defense with his #1 offense in the Super Bowl. He put 55 points on the board in a little more than three quarters.

Sure, all great players have bad games, and Montana certainly had a few. Shit, in the 82 Championship Game (The Catch) he threw three picks before the game-winning drive.

But he DID come up with the game-winning drive because he was a WINNER. He played poorly for long stretches in several postseason games that he won because he knew how to win football games and he could execute better than anyone else in the biggest moments. His staggeringly superior numbers in the postseason compared to Manning only reinforce this.

I firmly stand by the statement that I would take Montana, Brady, Starr, Warner, Aikman, Favre, and maybe Unitas and Elway over Peyton Manning if I had to choose one QB to win a big postseason game. I’d take them any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

288

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

But he DID come up with the game-winning drive because he was a WINNER. He played poorly for long stretches in several postseason games that he won because he knew how to win football games and he could execute better than anyone else in the biggest moments. His staggeringly superior numbers in the postseason compared to Manning only reinforce this.

I firmly stand by the statement that I would take Montana, Brady, Starr, Warner, Aikman, Favre, and maybe Unitas and Elway over Peyton Manning if I had to choose one QB to win a big postseason game. I’d take them any day of the week and twice on Sundays.[/quote]

You know the difference between every one of those teams you mention and the Colts that Manning played with for so long… A defense. I will give the exception to Warner but he has the same record in the Superbowl (thanks to a spectacular play to stop the Titans 1-yd short) as Manning and by far an inferior career everywhere else. If Manning screws up as bad as Montana did in those post-season games you know what happens, there is no chance for him to be a winner because the defense never bailed him out. They let them score and you get drummed 43-8. Manning has always had to be flawless to win. If he wasn’t he didn’t win. The other guys you mentioned have never had that pressure. As you said, Montana could play awful and still have a chance to win, Elway had a top ranked D, the entire secondary for the 49ers went to the pro-bowl after that 2nd SB, Favre had White, Aikman’s D was brutal, and the Patriots D during those SB years was one of the best (plus a clutch kicker).

289

Manning is behind Montana, Bradshaw and a distant 3rd in Brady.

anyway

I hope this happens. I have a strange soft spot of Lovie, and want to see him win, and win a lot.

290

And the only reason I put him a half step in front of Aikman, is because of Emmitt & that Oline. God damn was that Dallas team a dominant force.

291

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

But he DID come up with the game-winning drive because he was a WINNER. He played poorly for long stretches in several postseason games that he won because he knew how to win football games and he could execute better than anyone else in the biggest moments. His staggeringly superior numbers in the postseason compared to Manning only reinforce this.

I firmly stand by the statement that I would take Montana, Brady, Starr, Warner, Aikman, Favre, and maybe Unitas and Elway over Peyton Manning if I had to choose one QB to win a big postseason game. I’d take them any day of the week and twice on Sundays.[/quote]

You know the difference between every one of those teams you mention and the Colts that Manning played with for so long… A defense. I will give the exception to Warner but he has the same record in the Superbowl (thanks to a spectacular play to stop the Titans 1-yd short) as Manning and by far an inferior career everywhere else. If Manning screws up as bad as Montana did in those post-season games you know what happens, there is no chance for him to be a winner because the defense never bailed him out. They let them score and you get drummed 43-8. Manning has always had to be flawless to win. If he wasn’t he didn’t win. The other guys you mentioned have never had that pressure. As you said, Montana could play awful and still have a chance to win, Elway had a top ranked D, the entire secondary for the 49ers went to the pro-bowl after that 2nd SB, Favre had White, Aikman’s D was brutal, and the Patriots D during those SB years was one of the best (plus a clutch kicker). [/quote]

Here’s the thing: I will gladly admit that Manning played the position better than Montana did, given the sheer totality of responsibilities he assumes on every play. But Montana was better at winning, as evidenced by his superior numbers in big games.

Sure, Montana played with better defenses. But it was still Montana making the big plays at the end of games. When given the chance, he capitalized at a rate higher than any QB in the history of the game, and he did so in the biggest moments. Manning hasn’t done that.

I also think people forget about how dominant some of Montana’s numbers were compared to his peers. They don’t really stack up against Manning as far as regular season numbers go, but that has more to do with era than anything else. Statistically, Montana was about as dominant in his time as Manning has been in his. He retired with the highest passer rating ever, and the next wasn’t even close. The only knock on Montana is his lack of longevity.

292

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And the only reason I put him a half step in front of Aikman, is because of Emmitt & that Oline. God damn was that Dallas team a dominant force. [/quote]

Aikman was probably the most tenuous name on my list. I don’t understand the Bradshaw pick, though. All of the other great QBs mentioned thus far were the driving force on their teams. But Bradshaw played second fiddle to that defense his whole career. I think that makes him a special case compared to other QBs with 2+ rings.

To me, one of the most important factors in ranking the all-time greats is looking at how they played in the playoffs compared to the regular season. Did they step it up against the best competition? Did they at least maintain a high level? Or did they see a drop in production?

I think passer rating and QBR are probably the most utilitarian statistics in this respect. The guys that I listed really picked things up or at least maintained a ridiculously high level in the playoffs. Montana was actually the latter. I think his postseason rating is only a point or two higher than his career rating. But they’re both still in the top ten of all-time.

Incidentally:
Take a look at the top 15 seasons for QBs in terms of TD passes. Of the top 15 totals for one year, only 2 QBs won Super Bowls that year. Warner had 41 and Favre had 39.

293

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t understand the Bradshaw pick, though. All of the other great QBs mentioned thus far were the driving force on their teams. But Bradshaw played second fiddle to that defense his whole career. I think that makes him a special case compared to other QBs with 2+ rings.
[/quote]

On Mike and Mike Bradshaw even admitted that despite his four rings he isn’t even in the top 5 quarterbacks of all time.

294

I guess my biggest thing with Peyton is, he took teams to the playoffs that had no business being there at all. I look at Marino the same way. You look at the teams for Brady, Montana, Aikman, Bradshaw especially, they would be in the playoffs with almost any starting QB. Look at the Brady injury year vs the Manning injury year.

I have always ranked qb’s based off this one measuring stick, if Brady, Manning, Montana, Marino, and Aikman each qb’d the same team, I don’t care which team, could be the '13 Jags for all I care, who takes you farther? The answer to that question is the answer to the greatest qb of all time debate and I don’t understand how there could be another way of looking at it. In any other way of looking at it you remove QB play and get into team play which has a lot more variables.

295

Pick the QB with the biggest tits.

296

640×633 87.2 KB

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Pick the QB with the biggest tits.

[/quote]

Winner??

297

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And the only reason I put him a half step in front of Aikman, is because of Emmitt & that Oline. God damn was that Dallas team a dominant force. [/quote]

Yes Goddamnit they were.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH JJ why wont you die

298

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Pick the QB with the biggest tits.

[/quote]
What was the name of that fat QB that was in New York a few years ago?

Lorenzo or something

299

[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t understand the Bradshaw pick, though. All of the other great QBs mentioned thus far were the driving force on their teams. But Bradshaw played second fiddle to that defense his whole career. I think that makes him a special case compared to other QBs with 2+ rings.
[/quote]

On Mike and Mike Bradshaw even admitted that despite his four rings he isn’t even in the top 5 quarterbacks of all time. [/quote]

I mean, I hear you guys, and I’m not saying my opinion is gold, but I put Bradshaw and Montana in the top class, Brady a distant third, and Aikman/Manning giving him a flat tire.

The reason I put Bradshaw there is because 4 rings is hard to discount, irrelevant of the team around you. You’re still the leader on offense and have to have your shit together to win 4 damn times.

Fair points for those that don’t think he belongs, but I do is all.