The NFL Super Bowl and Stuffs Thread

[Jaime L]

[quote name='Mexal' post='1655269' date='Jan 20 2009, 11.41']The Giants were an 8-8 team yet they were very good and did it on the road :dunno:[/quote]

You mean last years Giants?

They were [s]11-5[/s]. 10-6

[Mexal]

[quote name='Jaime M' post='1655273' date='Jan 20 2009, 11.41']You mean last years Giants?

They were [s]11-5[/s]. 10-6[/quote]

I'm getting my years mixed up. It was the year before then they sneaked into the playoffs as 8-8.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Mexal' post='1655269' date='Jan 20 2009, 09.41']The Giants were an 8-8 team yet they were very good and did it on the road :dunno:[/quote]


Oh, I'm not saying they can't win it. they absolutely can.

I'm just saying that it's a bit overstated to consider them a truly dominant team.

It seems like with that schedule, a 'best of the era' QB could have eeked out more than 9 wins.

Part of that is because their defense is atrocious, but still......

[Mexal]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1655278' date='Jan 20 2009, 11.44']Oh, I'm not saying they can't win it. they absolutely can.

I'm just saying that it's a bit overstated to consider them a truly dominant team.

It seems like with that schedule, a 'best of the era' QB could have eeked out more than 9 wins.

Part of that is because their defense is atrocious, but still......[/quote]

They've stepped it up though.

To be fair, it's like when Manning won. His defense had the worst run defense in the entire league then in the playoffs they played inspired football.

Either way, Warner is playing well and I hope he keeps it up.

ETA: The Cardinals are not a dominant team. The Steelers are though.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Mexal' post='1655280' date='Jan 20 2009, 09.46']They've stepped it up though.

To be fair, it's like when Manning won. His defense had the worst run defense in the entire league then in the playoffs they played inspired football.

Either way, Warner is playing well and I hope he keeps it up.

ETA: The Cardinals are not a dominant team. The Steelers are though.[/quote]


Definitely.

They've shown they deserve to be there, and i actually like Warner.

[Rockroi]

I agree a lot with Jaime on this. If Kurt wins the SB with the Cards it will be a great accomplishment, but hardly indicative of "the best QB in the modern era." Now, please, understand that I like Warner a lot so I have no problems if we all agreed on this, but I think Kurt has had a lot f things going for him that tend to buttress his success: amazing Wide Outs, Marshall Faulk, a really underrated defense (the 1999 D was actually pretty good).

Lets look at the other modern contenders:

[quote]Brady has the mastermind Belichek. The guy who just got an 11-5 season out of a QB who hadn't started since high school. You could make an argument that it was the system, not the man, in New England. Whisenhunt is not Belichek, and Vermiel was out of the NFL for 15 years before his Rams stint.[/quote]

But the man did help make that system. Try to remember that before 2007, the best WR Tom Brady ever threw to was Troy Brown, who I love but who will never be confused with Clayton, Duper, Rice, Harrison or Owens. Cassell inherited Randy Moss and Wes Welker. These guys lead, in no small part, to Cassell's success. Wide Outs usually do. Brady also had the stupifying 2007 season which is arguably the best single season a QB ever had. And prior to that he only won three Superbowls, two SB MVPs, etc. Yes, please do not mistake me- Belichick had a very large part in all this; but its not like Montana had a popcorn guy as his head coach or that Dick Vermiel is a used car salesman- these guys know their jobs as well. I do agree, though, that no coach has had more of an effect on an organziation (for the better) than Belichick with the Pats since Walsh with the 49'ers. And Belichick had a salary cap, so I see your point.

I think Brady would have to be in front of Wraner even if Warner won the SB.

[quote]Favre, in the last few years, has played himself out of "best of all time" conversations. Warner never led the league in interceptions. Favre has never overcome situations where there were merely "ordinary" players around him. Plus, Warner never played for a Mike Holmgren.[/quote]

I agree with almost all of this, but again, I think that downgrading Warner's caoches is a massive mistake. And Favre's numbers are almost across-the-board better than Warner's so not sure Warner can catch him there either. I, regretably, would have to rank Favre before Warner, but I am hoping somebody will explain why I am wrong here.

[quote]Elway is a guy who needed great players around him. His receivers were always above average, but he couldn't win until they gave him the best RB of the era to take the game out of his hands. Yes, he did amazing things. He probably had the best skills of anyone on this list. But he never galvanized a mediocre team into a champion on his own sheer force of will.[/quote]

I can go either way here; try to remember that Elway's best days were probably when the Broncos were playing basically on his back; after the SB loss to the Giants, Elway continued to be the ONLY good thing on that team. And lets not forget what the "Three Amigos" did after they left Denver- that's right: absolutely nothing. And I thought there was one or two years in there where the Broncos made the playoffs JUST on Elway alone. Though, I will agree Davis had mroe to do with his SB victories than Elway. And I would then answer that Faulk had more to do with teh Rams successes than Warner. Hence, I think this is a push.

[quote]Manning. OK, honestly, I think Manning is truly the best ever. Jim Mora and Tony Dungy did not make him into the best because of their system. Edgerrin James and Marshall Faulk didn't win him a Lombardi trophy, he did it with the lower tier Addai. But he's only won one.[/quote]

I think the best ever would find a way not to get boucned from the palayoffs in the first game 3 of the last 4 season. The other two times post Mora- defeat in the AFC Championship game, and a SB win. I'm sorry, but with all those oppertunities, surrounded by terrific talent and great coaching, I find it hard to believe that the "greatest ever" only manages 1 SB appearance. At the same time, his stats are unassailable. If Wraner gets a second SB... its a close one.

My list:


Montana
Brady
Manning
Elway
Warner
Favre
Marino
Young
Aikman
Kelly

[Kalbear]

[quote]I think the best ever would find a way not to get boucned from the palayoffs in the first game 3 of the last 4 season.[/quote]If Manning was the best ever, he would've played linebacker. And blocked better when doing running plays.

Also, isn't Brady's record basically identical to Manning's in the last four seasons? Let's see..Brady got bounced in the first round (Denver), got beat by Indy, lost in their superbowl, and then didn't make it to the playoffs at all. If Brady were the best ever, he'd find a way to not get injured, amirite?

I also hear that Manning told the defense to do a late hit out of bounds in overtime, because he wanted to get fired up.

Seriously, Rock...do you blame Brady for losing to the Giants last year? Because you're blaming Manning for basically the same asinine thing. Somehow, the great QBs can mystically transform their team into something amazing, even though they don't, ya know, play defense.

[Bronn Stone]

With an AVERAGE defense, Dan Fouts would have won a couple of Super Bowls at least. All he needed was 'average'. Never got close.

[Rockroi]

Kal:

Thank God, kal, I thought you were trapped somewhere under something heavy. You were so quiet. To get you to come out I decided to post on these baords; that always seems to get you running to your keyboard.

[quote]Also, isn't Brady's record basically identical to Manning's in the last four seasons? Let's see..Brady got bounced in the first round (Denver), got beat by Indy, lost in their superbowl, and then didn't make it to the playoffs at all. If Brady were the best ever, he'd find a way to not get injured, amirite?[/quote]

You are so creative and constructive with your comments and I know how badly you feel when reflecting on Brady's injury. In comes out in your posts. The last three seasons (not incluidng this one) Brady has been bounced in his SECOND playoff game (Denver- they had defeated the Jags the week before), lost the AFC Championship game (after defeating the Jags and Chargers), and a lost a Superbowl. In those three seasons, Manning has lost in his first game twice, won a SB (they then went on to lose in the first round THIS season as well). Manning obviously gets a gold satr for his SB, but my point was that over the course of time its really STARTLING how many times the Colts are "one and done." By contrast, this has never happened to Brady.

[quote]I also hear that Manning told the defense to do a late hit out of bounds in overtime, because he wanted to get fired up.[/quote]

Of course, kal, that was the only reason the Colts lost that game. The ONLY reason. It must have been the same speach Brady gave to the O-line before his last Superbowl- just let everyone through, guys, I have this one under control. And they were still one absurd catch away from winning that one.

[quote]Seriously, Rock...do you blame Brady for losing to the Giants last year? Because you're blaming Manning for basically the same asinine thing. Somehow, the great QBs can mystically transform their team into something amazing, even though they don't, ya know, play defense.[/quote]

Chill. I am not "blaming" anyone. I am not acessing blame. I am pointing out that in identifying the geratest QBs some get checks and minus at different things. Manning seems to get bounced from the playoffs after just the first game. And yes, they do play defense; I am aware of this. Thank you though for pointing it out- you are very helpful.

I mean, Kal, lets just start over. Forget the Superbowls, forget the MVP awards, etc. Just throw it all out and lets start here:

Brady's best season (2007) was the best season statistically any QB has had since Marino and better than any single season Manning had ever had. Also, when evaluating Manning, REMEMBER that Manning, overall, had better weapons on offense than Brady did UNTIL 2007. And by-in-large, Brady enjoyed more success than Manning during those years he had less talent. The moment he had more talent, he was able to eclipse Manning's numbers.

So, yes, its a very, very close argument here- one that can hinge on many different factors. But to me, looking at those facts illustrated above, I put Brady slightly ahead of Manning.

[Jaime L]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1655473' date='Jan 20 2009, 13.36']My list:

Montana
Brady[/quote]

I'm fairly shocked by this.

What would Brady think? :P

[Bronn Stone]

[quote name='Jaime M' post='1655554' date='Jan 20 2009, 11.35']I'm fairly shocked by this.

What would Brady think? :P[/quote]

Tom is okay.
Rock sent him a note saying the list is secretly meant to be read from the bottom up.
There were two hearts and a BFF notation as well.

[Young Wolf]

[quote name='Jaime M' post='1655554' date='Jan 20 2009, 14.35']I'm fairly shocked by this.

What would Brady think? :P[/quote]

If he had a grave, he would have rolled over in it. Unfortunately for us, yet fortunate for Tom, he's rolling over onto Giselle.

YW

[Arakasi]

The difference between the Pats and the Colts is that the Pats have consistently had good defenses, something the Colts haven't had. The Pats lately have shown that having all the firepower in the world does you no good if your defense isn't good enough to stop the other guys. Both recent losses to Mannings showed that. Peyton has done his job in bringing his team back or keeping them in games enough times to discount the few times he has failed at it. Pats have 3 wins to the Colts one because of coaching and defense. Which win championships a hell of a lot more often than offense.

Colts this year won all their games because of 1) Manning 2) turnovers from their opportunistic defense 3) other teams imploding, hiya to Houston there!. They virtually won no games by actually being a better team than the other guys. Their running game was horrible, well beyond horrible. Their defense managed to do okay by creating some turnovers. However teams which live by the turnover tend to die when they stop getting them. Indy is horrible at getting 3 and outs on defense. And because their running game is so subpar they are susceptible to getting 3 and outs on offense because they have no one to go to that is credible on third and short. Which is why it is no surprise they lost to a good Chargers team in a road playoff game.

The Pittsburgh loss in 05 with Indy. That was Indy's fault. This year against the Chargers (or even last years?) not really. They just ran into a more complete team and couldn't get enough turnovers or Manning brilliance to win.

[Ser Paladin]

This Warner argument that I've decided to take up is the only thing standing between me and "pitchers and catchers report" for the Phillies.

So, I'm going to keep running with it ;)

[quote name='Jaime M' post='1655251' date='Jan 20 2009, 11.32']Here's how I rate the modern era (ie: since 1980) QBs as of right now:

Elway
Montana
Brady
Manning
Favre
Marino
Young
Warner
Aikman
Kelly[/quote]

I'll give you Manning and Montana, and grudgingly put Elway into the top 3 with them because he [b]did [/b]drag his team to victories by force of will in the 80s and earlier 90s.

Brady's still in the early part of his career (theoretically) and hasn't had the chance to prove himself by [i]carrying [/i]a mediocre team, so let's leave him out of the discussion entirely. If Brady wins one or two more, the rest of the conversation becomes moot, and if the knee sidelines him forever, it becomes a non-issue.

How can you rate Young and Marino ahead of Warner? Young inherited the dynasty, and all those pieces were just sitting there waiting for him when he took over as the starter, including all-ever Jerry Rice. He proved conclusively that he couldn't do the heavy lifting on his own in Tampa, and once the team evolved to be "his team" instead of "the team Joe Montana left me", it never won a Super Bowl. And Marino [b]never [/b]won it all, and barely sniffed it after his early years, despite having some of the most talented playmakers around him.

[Arakasi]

I agree with Paladin on Young. He had special talents, but he was also on stacked teams and only won one with them.

I disagree on Marino though. He was Manning before Manning. Sure his teams had some nice receivers, but their defense sucked and their running game was mediocre. Almost the same issues Manning has had. The difference though was in his prime there were some very strong all around teams. Much less parity. They faced the Niners the one time they did get there. And they didn't manage to in other years because the AFC at that time had some strong teams in Cinci and Cleveland and then later on Pittsburgh and Buffalo. He probably should have beaten New England in 85, but then again Chicago would have won that rematch game. He did the best he could with some fairly mediocre teams (his best teams were his first couple years in the league)

I'm not sure who these great playmakers you're talking about are. Clayton and Duper is about all I can think of, and neither were great. Neither are as good as Fitzgerald or even Holt. Not to mention that Marino never had someone like Faulk. Marino only wishes he had the talent around him on offense that Warner has had on both teams he's played on.

[Jaime L]

[quote name='Ser Paladin' post='1655712' date='Jan 20 2009, 16.08']This Warner argument that I've decided to take up is the only thing standing between me and "pitchers and catchers report" for the Phillies.

So, I'm going to keep running with it ;)[/quote]

Hey, I'm game.

[quote]How can you rate Young and Marino ahead of Warner? Young inherited the dynasty, and all those pieces were just sitting there waiting for him when he took over as the starter, including all-ever Jerry Rice. He proved conclusively that he couldn't do the heavy lifting on his own in Tampa, and once the team evolved to be "his team" instead of "the team Joe Montana left me", it never won a Super Bowl.[/quote]

Now here's where it gets interesting. Never gave much thought to whether Young was better than Warner, just assumed this to be true, in the way that prior generations of players always seem more mythic than those still playing.

That said, while I agree that Young inherited a dynasty, Warner didn't exactly have to spin yarn into gold. The 1999 Rams were one of the greatest offenses of all time. Maybe[i] the [/i]greatest, if it weren't for the '07 Patriots. Two dominant WRs (Holt and Bruce), two very above average backup WRs (Proehl and Hakim)...there was a reason this was voted the greatest receiving corps of all time on NFL network, one of the greatest RBs of all time (Faulk) and a great O-line anchored by Pace and Timmerman. It's tough to separate how great he made all those players, or how great they all made him. The Rams went from 5 wins in '98, the year prior to Kurt, to 14 wins and a title in '99, Kurt's first year. It would seem he's the greatest phenom of all time and you could still possibly make that case. But the problem is, Warner, Faulk and Holt, the Rams three best playmakers all arrived that same year. So there's synergies there that's difficult to determine. It's clear he was a huge part of the Rams' success, though most people and some opposing defenses would argue that Faulk was the MVP.

Young's comparable team, the '94 49ers, were also an offensive powerhouse though not to the same extent. But they probably had the superior defense. Think talent-wise the two teams are comparable. Yeah, Young had inherited the dynasty, but I don't think he had any more talent around him ever than Warner did in '99. Though it's debatable.

Beyond Warner in '99 and Young in '94, both ultimately came up short every other year. Yougn's career was abbreviated due to playing in the USFL and backing up, possibly, the greatest QB ever (whose job he ultimately took). Warner's career has been abbreviated due to playing in the NFL and stocking groceries. The difference as i see it, is that [b]Warner has only made the playoffs 4 times in his entire career.[/b] Young made the playoffs every year from '92 through '98. He's got the same number of MVPs as Warner (2), same number of Super Bowl titles (for the moment), but had a longer run of very good play. He also won his Super Bowl in the midst of another team's dynasty. And had the Cowboys not been so good (or at least if Herschel Walker hadn't happened) we don't know how many titles Steve Young would've won. Warner meanwhile won his only title in a transitional time in the league, after the Cowboys, Packers and Broncos had all faded and before the Patriots would become really good. 1999-2002 was as ripe of a time to dominate the league as any and he didn't.

[quote]And Marino [b]never [/b]won it all, and barely sniffed it after his early years, despite having some of the most talented playmakers around him.[/quote]

The argument against Marino always centers on him not having won it all. I'm sure it galls him to no end to see the kind of journeymen that have won it since he retired. There's no greater stain on a Hall of Fame QB's resume than that. And you can never completely absolve him of that sin. But he is still one of the all time great passers in league history. Like Dan Fouts or Warren Moon, though even more prolific, and should be judged appropriately. Just tougher to rank, because everyone's favorite argument when it comes to the NFL is: "This guy just wins."

Still don't know who in his place would've won one with those Dolphins team. Elway would've had the same career had Davis and Shanahan not come along.

But another title for Warner and I may have to reconsider all this.

[Rockroi]

[quote]What would Brady think?[/quote]

Please don’t tell him.
[quote]The Pats lately have shown that having all the firepower in the world does you no good if your defense isn't good enough to stop the other guys. Both recent losses to Mannings showed that.[/quote]

How do you figure this? Over the past two seasons the Pats are 27-6 (incl playoffs); how does this equate with being unable to win? And this season, the pats had the #10 ranked defense in the NFL. Now do not get me wrong- PART of that ranking is schedule, but schedule only does so much. Further, during the SB, the Pats DID hold the opponents to 17 points; they did their job (the O-line? Not so much).

[quote]Peyton has done his job in bringing his team back or keeping them in games enough times to discount the few times he has failed at it. Pats have 3 wins to the Colts one because of coaching and defense. Which win championships a hell of a lot more often than offense.[/quote]

Why do you hate Tony Dungee so much? And the Colts did have some really good players on D especially the last two seasons. Now, I will agree- the Pats have had- by-in-large, better D and better coaching.
[quote]Colts this year won all their games because of 1) Manning 2) turnovers from their opportunistic defense 3) other teams imploding, hiya to Houston there!. They virtually won no games by actually being a better team than the other guys. Their running game was horrible, well beyond horrible. Their defense managed to do okay by creating some turnovers.[/quote]

I agree with this only to the extent of talking about the 2008 season, although I do think there were games where, man for man, the Colts were the better team all around (most notably the Pats and the Houston games). Manning kept them in nearly every game.
[quote]Brady's still in the early part of his career (theoretically) and hasn't had the chance to prove himself by carrying a mediocre team, so let's leave him out of the discussion entirely. If Brady wins one or two more, the rest of the conversation becomes moot, and if the knee sidelines him forever, it becomes a non-issue.[/quote]
The 2001 team? The defense was very good, but certainly not at the level of the 2003 or 2004 teams- the entire team was made up of spare parts, Brady included. And that team, I would submit, was carried by-in-large by Tom Brady. Very few QBs carry a whole team, and Manning cannot even be credited with that. If we say that Manning carried the 2006 Colts, I really think the same can be said of the 2001 Pats.

[About Yea High]

Jaime M.'s [i]Frank Reich[/i] mention caused me to cackle with full-on remembered glee. My knee bounced up, hitting a notebook that draped off the edge of my desk, knocking over the can of [i]Diet Dr. Pepper[/i] I had sitting by my printer. Said printer is still sticky, and a half-inch of paper is officially caramel-colored.

So thanks for that.

As to the Warner conversation, A. yes, hall-of-famer, B. no, not 5th best modern-era quarterback. And this is coming from an L. A. (Anaheim, but let's not quibble) Ram fan who swore not to abandon his team until every last L. A. player had left the roster (Isaac Bruce, for those keeping score - now playing his @$$ off in hated San Francisco).

(Aside: I need to actually pick a team now. I hate Phillip Rivers, so it ain't the Chargers. [i]Showmeyourlightningbolt![/i])

I love Warner, and the fact that he got us a ring, something Vince Ferragamo couldn't do against the original Steel Curtain ... though I'd always point out Jack Youngblood had a broken leg, so our own defense was hampered in what turned out to be a competitive game until the 4th quarter. I saw Warner almost beat the Patsies (Jaime M. seems to forget that he brought the Rams back to take the lead in that game with a mere two minutes remaining, and he doesn't play defense or block Vinatieri field goals).

But 5th best? I can't go there.

Montana will always be the best. Mostly because he killed me so prettily for all those years.
Elway, because he was Elway.
Brady was second best until last season when they failed to be perfect (I know, Brady brought them back and doesn't play defense either - see how I am?).
I rank Favre a step higher than Manning, mostly because he was crazy, and crazy is good.
Manning 5th. He's a machine.
Marino 6th. No ring, only one Super Bowl appearance, and Manning will own all his records, but damn, what a quarterback.
Warner 7th.
Aikman 8th.
Kelly 9th.
Warren Moon 10th. I'll give some props to the wife-beater. He was so good for so long.

Steve Young isn't even in the top-10 conversation. I'd rank Doug Williams ahead of him.

Hell, I might rank Eric Hipple ahead of him.

O-ver-ra-ted.

[Mexal]

Choose the Bengals! We only have two fans! We need more!

[Arakasi]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1655801' date='Jan 20 2009, 16.12']Please don’t tell him.


How do you figure this? Over the past two seasons the Pats are 27-6 (incl playoffs); how does this equate with being unable to win? And this season, the pats had the #10 ranked defense in the NFL. Now do not get me wrong- PART of that ranking is schedule, but schedule only does so much. Further, during the SB, the Pats DID hold the opponents to 17 points; they did their job (the O-line? Not so much).



Why do you hate Tony Dungee so much? And the Colts did have some really good players on D especially the last two seasons. Now, I will agree- the Pats have had- by-in-large, better D and better coaching.


I agree with this only to the extent of talking about the 2008 season, although I do think there were games where, man for man, the Colts were the better team all around (most notably the Pats and the Houston games). Manning kept them in nearly every game.

The 2001 team? The defense was very good, but certainly not at the level of the 2003 or 2004 teams- the entire team was made up of spare parts, Brady included. And that team, I would submit, was carried by-in-large by Tom Brady. Very few QBs carry a whole team, and Manning cannot even be credited with that. If we say that Manning carried the 2006 Colts, I really think the same can be said of the 2001 Pats.[/quote]

I never said unable to win in general, I meant unable to win the super bowl. I don't really care how deep a team goes into the playoffs, unless it is super bowl runner up. Losing in the wild card or losing in the divisional is no difference to me. Anyway everyone knows that in the playoffs defense wins championships. Heck even the 2006 Colts the big thing was how much their run defense stepped up in the playoffs.

I don't think Dungee is that good a coach. A motivator sure. A technical and innovative ball coach? Not really.

I think there is a big difference between the Colts defense and the Pats defense of the last few years that is separate from the fact that the Pats just have a better defense. It is the style the two play. Colts play cover 2 and have a small defensive team. They go for speed bigtime. Pats are more of a conventional defense, built more to be balanced and to play man and less about sacking the QB. The Colts whole defensive philosophy is to get pressure on the QB and hope that translates into turnovers.

When they don't get turnovers they get fucked, because they don't have the size (or in most cases the health because of injuries caused due to lack of size) to keep that sort of pressure up. When they don't get turnovers or critical stops they loose. The Pats defense doesn't rely on turnovers to the same degree and they are much more capable of getting opponents off the field. Which to me is crucial because the Pats defense is more consistent. You'll know what you'll get from them. As for the Colts you can get a Freeney 3 sack day along with a Sanders pick and maybe a LB pick and Indy will destroy them. But then you get a day where you get like 1-2 sacks and no picks and Indy's defense is run off the field like San Diego did to them this year. Now in some years (and during a lot of the regular season) it is okay because Manning had a lot of weapons and could make up for it. But now the offense there the last 2-3 years is getting worse (certainly since their title) and their defense isn't really getting any better.

And I agree with you that 2001 Pats and 2006 Colts are very similar in ways. Incomplete teams that won the super bowl against legitimately better teams. It's just in 2006 the tough teams the Colts played were in the AFC side while for the Pats it was the super bowl against the Rams. (well I guess Oakland wasn't too bad but its pretty hard to look at that game :P)

I guess what I'm saying is that if Manning was in Brady's position and Brady was in Manning's position nothing would have changed. The Colts would still have one title and the Pats would still have 3. I don't necessarily disagree with you that Brady is better than Manning. I'd call it a wash myself. (I'd say that Brady is more consistent. Early Colts years Manning certainly self destructed a few times too many, but then again late Manning of the last 3-4 years has been slightly better than Brady's best. I think the main difference between how you value the 2 is how you value consistency versus top end play) They both to me have had one super bowl where they in large part carried their teams to it. I just wanted to point out that the main difference between why Manning has won 1 and Brady 3 is the teams they play for, not the players themselves.