Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

[Fox1994]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

^Dude, that's deep. I've got to say I agree with most of what you're saying.

[shotgun styles]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

^Dude, that's deep. I've got to say I agree with most of what you're saying.

Raider fans always love it when I go after the QB's. Even though I hate the Raiders, I still love your fans the most. You appreciate the fact that football is supposed to be a violent sport, played as though one's life depended upon the outcome.

Raider fans "get it" better than any other fans in the NFL, largely because of the renegade status of that franchise.

[HealyMonster]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

The term "overrated" means exactly that: they are rated higher than they're play indicates. That is perception and subjective value analysis.

My value system differs from yours. I think ALL NFL QBs are overrated. They get too much credit for wins and they're stats are inflated due to the unfair passing rules.

So by my logic Ben is overrated just by BEING AN NFL QUARTERBACK. However, compared to Tom Brady who has reached god-like status in the sports media, Ben is not nearly AS overrated.

I don't dislike Manning and Brady. I like them both as people and as good solid role models. But I think if the NFL passing rules were fair neither would be able to function on a football field, much less be any good.

Plainly stated Manning and Brady are not real athletes. They are pool players with jersey numbers. They don't really deserve to be on the field with actual world class athletes like Brian Urlacher and Ed Reed. Given a level playing field Manning and Brady would be killed in the NFL. Their success is entirely artificial, and forcing great athletes like Reed and Urlacher to compete against players who are allowed to cheat degrades this game and is an insult to the players who sacrificed to make it America's game.

So the answer is YES BEN IS OVERRATED. Just not as much as Brady. Happy now?

I dont agree for the simple fact that if this were true, Manning and Brady would have alot more peers. They are elite quarterbacks for a reason. Regardless if they are protected or not by rules, if they werent great, anyone would be able to replicate what they do. Unfortunately, that isnt the case and 30 teams are still looking for the next Tom Brady or the Next Peyton Manning.

It wasnt the media who made Brady the starter when Bledsoe went down, and it wasnt the media who kept brady in when bledsoe got better. He made it on his own accord. I hate the Pats, steelers and colts for the simple fact that they win more championships than the Titans. I would take any of those dudes as my qb and if one were my qb i could see us having at least 1 sb in the past 8 years.

[CW McGraw]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

The term "overrated" means exactly that: they are rated higher than they're play indicates. That is perception and subjective value analysis.

My value system differs from yours. I think ALL NFL QBs are overrated. They get too much credit for wins and they're stats are inflated due to the unfair passing rules.

So by my logic Ben is overrated just by BEING AN NFL QUARTERBACK. However, compared to Tom Brady who has reached god-like status in the sports media, Ben is not nearly AS overrated.

I don't dislike Manning and Brady. I like them both as people and as good solid role models. But I think if the NFL passing rules were fair neither would be able to function on a football field, much less be any good.

Plainly stated Manning and Brady are not real athletes. They are pool players with jersey numbers. They don't really deserve to be on the field with actual world class athletes like Brian Urlacher and Ed Reed. Given a level playing field Manning and Brady would be killed in the NFL. Their success is entirely artificial, and forcing great athletes like Reed and Urlacher to compete against players who are allowed to cheat degrades this game and is an insult to the players who sacrificed to make it America's game.

So the answer is YES BEN IS OVERRATED. Just not as much as Brady. Happy now?

I disagree with your scathing views on modern NFL QBs. I'll concede that because of the current rules, modern QBs get overrated to an extent. Brady and Manning are worshipped as all time greats because of their statistical dominance over guys like Sonny Jurgenson and John Unitas. IMO, Manning and Brady would have had a similar level of success compared to their peers if they had played in the Dead Ball era. Likewise, Jurgenson, who was throwing for 3500 yards a year in the middle of the 60s, and Unitas could easily throw for 40 TDs in the modern game. The only difference between the modern greats and the old time greats is numerical.

In a way, your extreme antagonism to modern QBs is a reaction to the thorough knob slobbing Brady and Manning get from the mainstream media.

I'm curious about who you consider the greatest QB of all time?

[wwharton]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

The term "overrated" means exactly that: they are rated higher than they're play indicates. That is perception and subjective value analysis.

My value system differs from yours. I think ALL NFL QBs are overrated. They get too much credit for wins and they're stats are inflated due to the unfair passing rules.

So by my logic Ben is overrated just by BEING AN NFL QUARTERBACK. However, compared to Tom Brady who has reached god-like status in the sports media, Ben is not nearly AS overrated.

I don't dislike Manning and Brady. I like them both as people and as good solid role models. But I think if the NFL passing rules were fair neither would be able to function on a football field, much less be any good.

Plainly stated Manning and Brady are not real athletes. They are pool players with jersey numbers. They don't really deserve to be on the field with actual world class athletes like Brian Urlacher and Ed Reed. Given a level playing field Manning and Brady would be killed in the NFL. Their success is entirely artificial, and forcing great athletes like Reed and Urlacher to compete against players who are allowed to cheat degrades this game and is an insult to the players who sacrificed to make it America's game.

So the answer is YES BEN IS OVERRATED. Just not as much as Brady. Happy now?

Happy? Not really. You still have a 6 paragraph post answering a question about Ben where you just bash Brady... only difference is you add Manning now.

Some of your points I agree with and some I don't. But the main thing I'd like to see is you bashing Ben as much as these other guys if that's how you feel. Because considering what he's actually done he's get overhyped just as much as anyone else. Yes Brady gets more hype but he's also achieved more with championships and statistics so it's a fair comparison. Start using Ben in your examples and then I'll be happy. Otherwise it just looks like you're a Brady *****.

[shotgun styles]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

Prologue:

Renegade44, CW McGraw, WWharton: I am fully aware that the things I have said can sound ridiculous to folks who have not heard this argument before. I'd like to say that your responses have all been mature, pointed and well thought out and I thank you guys for that. I respect your intellectual tone.

Now, on to the issues...

I dont agree for the simple fact that if this were true, Manning and Brady would have alot more peers. They are elite quarterbacks for a reason. Regardless if they are protected or not by rules, if they werent great, anyone would be able to replicate what they do. Unfortunately, that isnt the case and 30 teams are still looking for the next Tom Brady or the Next Peyton Manning.

QB greatness is not just about the player, it's about coaching, the franchise they play for and that player's skill focus. If Manning goes to the Bengals or Raiders, he does not become the Peyton Manning we all know. He was surrounded by great talent in Indy, and that's because of the organization he went to.

The other thing is skill development. Very few QBs really develop their accuracy and anticipation skills because coaches spend too much time on other things. Players who do focus heavily on their accuracy are typically less physically gifted people who are trying to get any edge they can. This is Manning, Brady, and Brees. All mediocre armed, non-athletes who honed their accuracy and anticipation skills to a fine point.

But, if they could not throw the ball away they would all be screwed. They would take many more sacks. Without the 5 yard chuck rule, they would be forced to buy time or run for yardage, things that they are not really capable of doing. They are a product of the NFL rules, their own skill development, and the systems/organizations that they play for.

There is no ONE thing that makes an NFL QB good, it is a combination. And that is what makes drafting a franchise QB in today's NFL so difficult.

It wasnt the media who made Brady the starter when Bledsoe went down, and it wasnt the media who kept brady in when bledsoe got better. He made it on his own accord. I hate the Pats, steelers and colts for the simple fact that they win more championships than the Titans. I would take any of those dudes as my qb and if one were my qb i could see us having at least 1 sb in the past 8 years.

Right. But it was the media that gave Tom ALL THE CREDIT for the Pats wins. As I have said all along, Brady is good player. But during those Superbowl runs he was a COG IN THE MACHINE. He was A reason that they won, but not THE reason that they won.

I disagree with your scathing views on modern NFL QBs. I'll concede that because of the current rules, modern QBs get overrated to an extent. Brady and Manning are worshipped as all time greats because of their statistical dominance over guys like Sonny Jurgenson and John Unitas. IMO, Manning and Brady would have had a similar level of success compared to their peers if they had played in the Dead Ball era. Likewise, Jurgenson, who was throwing for 3500 yards a year in the middle of the 60s, and Unitas could easily throw for 40 TDs in the modern game. The only difference between the modern greats and the old time greats is numerical.

I disagree. Manning and Brady would not have survived at QB prior to 1978. People seem to forget that Otto Graham was a tailback in college, and Unitas played both ways in college. SS and LB. These guys were REAL athletes. Unitas had 1800 rushing yards. When the play broke down, they could make it happen. Brady and Manning would be taking 15 yard sacks. Throw in the fact that modern defenders are far superior athletes to those before 1978 and you have a recipe for QB death.

The real difference between the old QBs and the new is PHYSICAL TALENT. Today's QBs don't have any. This is because the 1978 rules have bred so much physical weakness and cowardice into the position. Telling QBs that they can cheat when things get to hard will breed weakness. Forcing them to make a play will breed strength. Natural selection at work: the physically weak and cowardly players like Manning and Brady would be bred out of the league and stronger players would replace them.

In a way, your extreme antagonism to modern QBs is a reaction to the thorough knob slobbing Brady and Manning get from the mainstream media.

I'm curious about who you consider the greatest QB of all time?

Much of my resentment is indeed directed at the media, which is why I try not to attack Manning and Brady personally. It's not their fault that they are overrated, they are just doing their jobs to the best of their ability.

As for best QB, it's a tossup. For championships, I go Otto Graham. For records I'd go Unitas. But if I had to choose just one, it would be Sammy Baugh. He played both ways and led the league in interceptions and passing touchdowns in the same year. The NFL would be MILES more entertaining (and competitive) if we had real athletes like him playing QB today. But guys like Vick and Pat White will never be able to achieve what the Manning's and Brady's will because athletic ability is not necessary for a QB in today's NFL.

Happy? Not really. You still have a 6 paragraph post answering a question about Ben where you just bash Brady... only difference is you add Manning now.

I gotta admit, that was funny. Interesting point.

Some of your points I agree with and some I don't. But the main thing I'd like to see is you bashing Ben as much as these other guys if that's how you feel. Because considering what he's actually done he's get overhyped just as much as anyone else. Yes Brady gets more hype but he's also achieved more with championships and statistics so it's a fair comparison. Start using Ben in your examples and then I'll be happy. Otherwise it just looks like you're a Brady *****.

I use them (Manning/Brady) as examples because they are the ones always held up as greats. The thing about Ben is, HE COULD PLAY another position. He is a solid athlete and if we went back to the old rules HE'D SURVIVE. Manning and Brady would not.

If Ben had to line up at MLB, he could play the position. If we moved him to TE, he could do the job. There is literally NO OTHER POSITION in the NFL that Manning, Brady, or Brees could play besides QB. I mentioned Untias playing both ways in college. Can you even PICTURE Manning playing MLB for the Vols, or Brady at SS for the Wolverines? No chance in hell.

What I am advocating for will NEVER happen in the NFL. If there is to be real football played it will have to be in a future upstart league. I still love the NFL, and I will still watch my Steelers on Sundays. I just root for the D. Unlike most of our rivals, I like the Ravens, and it is for this reason: they beat the tar out of these powder-puff QBs. And that gives me satisfaction...

[wwharton]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

Prologue:

Renegade44, CW McGraw, WWharton: I am fully aware that the things I have said can sound ridiculous to folks who have not heard this argument before. I'd like to say that your responses have all been mature, pointed and well thought out and I thank you guys for that. I respect your intellectual tone.

Now, on to the issues...



I use them (Manning/Brady) as examples because they are the ones always held up as greats. The thing about Ben is, HE COULD PLAY another position. He is a solid athlete and if we went back to the old rules HE'D SURVIVE. Manning and Brady would not.

If Ben had to line up at MLB, he could play the position. If we moved him to TE, he could do the job. There is literally NO OTHER POSITION in the NFL that Manning, Brady, or Brees could play besides QB. I mentioned Untias playing both ways in college. Can you even PICTURE Manning playing MLB for the Vols, or Brady at SS for the Wolverines? No chance in hell.

I think you're still dodging but I have to admit, I can't argue with the angle you're taking with this one. I don't know if Ben could've played MLB (or some other positions) but he's definitely got an NFL body and toughness... moreso than Brady or Manning. So I'll get off your back on that.

BTW, don't fall into the pattern of assuming we disagree bc we never heard the argument you're making before. I can tell you from posting around here for a while that the 3 of us you responded to have all done our share of going against the grain. And I agree with some of your points... the Pats D has never gotten enough credit for their success (including the 18-1 season) and if Brady had been drafted by another team I'm not sure he'd have ever been a starter... meanwhile if someone like Senace Wallace or Ramsey (just throwing names out there) got a chance on that Pats team they may be considered "great" today. I generally just disagree with your overall opinion on NFL QBs and think you go overboard with the Brady criticism... he did get the opportunity and he ran with it, which is more than we can say about many other QBs who had a chance to step into a great situation and fizzled. Bringing up Ben wasn't just bc you're a Steelers fan, but I feel like Ben's situation was similar to Brady's... and I feel like he's also going from being considered great (ignoring all the factors around him that are helping the team win) to actually becoming great along with all those factors. I'm not a huge Brady fan, but you have to give the man some props. He didn't build the team, build the system or make the NFL rules. "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

[Albinator18]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

the patriots and giants is a possibility.

[CW McGraw]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

I disagree. Manning and Brady would not have survived at QB prior to 1978. People seem to forget that Otto Graham was a tailback in college, and Unitas played both ways in college. SS and LB. These guys were REAL athletes. Unitas had 1800 rushing yards. When the play broke down, they could make it happen. Brady and Manning would be taking 15 yard sacks. Throw in the fact that modern defenders are far superior athletes to those before 1978 and you have a recipe for QB death.

The real difference between the old QBs and the new is PHYSICAL TALENT. Today's QBs don't have any. This is because the 1978 rules have bred so much physical weakness and cowardice into the position. Telling QBs that they can cheat when things get to hard will breed weakness. Forcing them to make a play will breed strength. Natural selection at work: the physically weak and cowardly players like Manning and Brady would be bred out of the league and stronger players would replace them.

Unitas and those of his ilk could afford to run because guys like 6'8'' 290 lbs Doug Adkins were the expecption. Unitas wasn't much smaller than the average defender. By contrast, 300 lbs. defensive linemen and LBs running 4.5 40s are common nowadays. Defenders nowadays, depsite rules banning "Night Train Neckties" and horsecollar tackles, are physical freaks compared to even a big strong QB like Ben or Tebow. True atheletes at QB wouldn't work today because defenders are on a different level.

[shotgun styles]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

Unitas and those of his ilk could afford to run because guys like 6'8'' 290 lbs Doug Adkins were the expecption. Unitas wasn't much smaller than the average defender. By contrast, 300 lbs. defensive linemen and LBs running 4.5 40s are common nowadays. Defenders nowadays, depsite rules banning "Night Train Neckties" and horsecollar tackles, are physical freaks compared to even a big strong QB like Ben or Tebow. True atheletes at QB wouldn't work today because defenders are on a different level.

You're making my point for me. Situations breed talent. Those "freaks" you're talking about would start playing QB. Did you know that Jevon Kearse played some QB in high school? Because of how hard it is to play defense in the NFL, offenses are losing the talent arms race. The biggest and strongest nearly all play on defense, but that is only the case because you don't need as much talent to effectively play offense under the current rule structure.

There is a breed of QB that has never been developed. They are huge, fast, strong guys who can throw the ball a mile. Most of them end up on defense or in the NBA. Change the rules and there will be a place for them at the pro level, but more importantly you will start to balance out the talent pool which is heavily weighted toward defense in the NFL.

[CW McGraw]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

While I'm intrigued by the idea of 280 lbs. freak QBs, I fail to see how the current system is necessarily a bad thing. What is so bad about subpar athletes at QB? Is the game really that dull that we need to change?

[shotgun styles]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

While I'm intrigued by the idea of 280 lbs. freak QBs, I fail to see how the current system is necessarily a bad thing. What is so bad about subpar athletes at QB? Is the game really that dull that we need to change?

That freak QB line was pretty good.

The current system is anti-competitive. Cheating should never be allowed. It's like the intentional foul in basketball to stop the clock, or the intentional walk in baseball to get to the next batter. It's cheating, just as much as steroids are cheating. If you made steroids legal for the offense and not the defense, wouldn't you call that unfair?

Pro football today is very competitive from team to team because of the salary cap and free agency. The NFL did that part very well, and every team seems to have a shot at the top. But the games themselves are watered down, with one silly penalty after another. Football is SUPPOSED to be violent. Players are SUPPOSED to get hurt. Injuries are part of the game.

The NFL is not boring to watch, but college football games are MUCH more exciting because of all the different kinds of players you get to see there. You get to see option offenses and 46 defenses, you get to see lots of trick plays and variation from game to game. This is because even though they have the NFL's silly rules, the talent level in college is much lower. Thus teams have to do more with less, and have to really innovate in order to succeed. NFL games are almost all the same. That's why everyone made such a big deal out of the Wildcat, because someone actually did something different.

The NFL is great, but has yet to reach it's real potential. This leaves the door open for another league. So far all those leagues have failed. But, if someone ever decided to go after 18-21 year olds the NFL would have a real competition on their hands. There is no law that says 18-21 year olds can't play pro ball. If an upstart league decided to take some of these kids who want to skip college and get their money now, they could put some really talented teams together.

[shnuskis]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

That's why everyone made such a big deal out of the Wildcat, because someone actually did something different.

The NFL is great, but has yet to reach it's real potential. This leaves the door open for another league. So far all those leagues have failed.

You hit on something interesting here and let me help you out just a little. One league did make it. The AFL. They did something different. They threw the ball. The NFL was 3 yards and a could of dust. The AFL was innovative and entertaining.(Also why the ABA could compete with the NBA.)

I also think the wildcat is overrated and over hyped. But it is precisely because as you said, the rest of the offenses are all the same and someone is doing something different.

(Beyond that, I disagree with just about everything else you are saying.)

[CW McGraw]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

I'd love to see the UFL try some of Shotgun's ideas. They won't compete by simply copying the NFL rules. If they want to actually attract an audience, innovation would be the best bet.

[Fox1994]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

^I agree wholeheartedly. It would be nice to see the old NFL in a modern setting. Maybe they could use all pre-'78 rules or something... Who knows... Btw, how'd this thread get so far off topic?