NFL Off Topic

[rangerrick012]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Tl;dr aroebee is basically saying Peyton manning = Tony Romo. Or did I get that one wrong?

[Chip Douglass]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Brady hasn't been too successful in the playoffs in a while either. I can't violate and call Peyton a bum after one bad game.

Not only that, but people tend to forget how mediocre Brady was during the Patriots' early SB runs. The Brady-led Patriots' offense in the 2002 playoffs scored 16, 3 (Bledsoe came in relief in the AFC title game), and 13 points, respectively.

The main difference between Brady and Manning's playoff records is that Brady had an elite defense to support him than Manning never had.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Tl;dr aroebee is basically saying Peyton manning = Tony Romo. Or did I get that one wrong?

Or: when a New England Patriots' fan says that Peyton Manning is overrated, question the motivations and then walk away.

[Steven78]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Judging QBs on rings is just a horribly flawed argument.

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

Re: NFL Off Topic

ESPN (at least their TV network) works like the other major media outlets, if it doesn't fit the narrative, it doesn't get reported. Of course their are exceptions, like when they try to tear people down, a la, Johnny Football, which they come up with a new narrative.

The idea that Quarterbacks win championships is a load on nonsense. Time and again it has been proven the most complete team wins championships; that is the team with a defense, a running game and then a passing game.

The Patriots won with great defense and a running game. If you look at Super Bowl champions from 2001, Ravens, Patriots, Buccaneers, Patriots, Patriots, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Giants, Pittsburgh, Saints, Packers, Giants and Ravens. Tell me, which of those teams won on the back of a QB? The closest one is the Colts. New England, Pittsburgh, and the Ravens all won in spite of their quarterback.

Most of those teams had great defense, and a solid running game.

[ubernoob]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Packers were a weird one.

Their defense brought them to the dance, but Rodgers (and Starks for a game or two) carried them through the playoffs.

[Chrisksaint]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Last I checked he does have the same number of titles as the guys who I'm guessing you're saying should "definitely" be ahead of him (Rodgers, Brees). So the fact that Brees team didn't even make it last year gets ignored then?

I'm not gonna say much in this argument cause imo Brees, Rodgers, Manning, and Brady are all basically the same aka extremely good. But you try to make the playoffs with one of the worst defense in NFL history and no HC

[Beantown]

Re: NFL Off Topic

The Patriots won with great defense and a running game. If you look at Super Bowl champions from 2001, Ravens, Patriots, Buccaneers, Patriots, Patriots, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Giants, Pittsburgh, Saints, Packers, Giants and Ravens. Tell me, which of those teams won on the back of a QB? The closest one is the Colts. New England, Pittsburgh, and the Ravens all won in spite of their quarterback.

Most of those teams had great defense, and a solid running game.

Patriots Vs Panthers - 32 completions (SB record at that time), 354 yards, 3 TDs, completed 2/3s of his passes, led the Patriots into FG range after the terrible kickoff.

How the **** is that "winning in spite of their QB"?

I'm staying out of the actual article, but this point was too ridiculous to pass up. The Rams SB was an awesome defensive strategy and a remarkable final drive to set up the FG. The SB over the Eagles was helped by the D, 4 Takeaways, and Dillon had a good game, but Brady was still 22/33 for 236 and 2 TDs.

Like I said - I don't care about the Brady/Peyton debate anymore, but saying NE won three SBs "in spite of their QB" is just...funny and downplaying how important Brady was.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Packers were a weird one.

Their defense brought them to the dance, but Rodgers (and Starks for a game or two) carried them through the playoffs.

Same thing with the Saints as well.

Eagles game: Led by Starks and the run game
Falcons game: Rodgers' historic performance
Bears game: Led by Defense
Super Bowl: Rodgers great performance with some key plays from Defense

[areobee401]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Or: when a New England Patriots' fan says that Peyton Manning is overrated, question the motivations and then walk away.

My fault for being able to argue on a message board at 2:30 in the morning. That's on me. My bad.

Point still stands. Not after 1 game like some either. Peyton rarely delivers when it matters most.

And y'all have killed the term narrative on here. Stop it.

[NYJets]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Just sticky this article and then ban any future brady/manning nonsense.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10017323/bill-barnwell-tom-brady-peyton-manning

[areobee401]

Re: NFL Off Topic

The debate was actually Brady, Brees, Rodgers being better than Manning. Thanks for that article though. But I'll continue to use my own eyes and memory to form my opinions.

[kaletore11]

Re: NFL Off Topic

About SB's depending on QB/Def/HB/everything.

I'll only speak for the Saints, and as good as Brees is, and as good as his stats in the big game were, when people reflect on that SB run they always talk about the opportunistic aggressive defense.
Basically, if you don't have a great QB, you won't win the SB.
But if a great QB is all you have, you won't win it either.

[NYJets]

Re: NFL Off Topic

The debate was actually Brady, Brees, Rodgers being better than Manning. Thanks for that article though. But I'll continue to use my own eyes and memory to form my opinions.

I don't blame you. Your selective memory fits your agenda perfectly.

[SPTO]

Re: NFL Off Topic

ESPN (at least their TV network) works like the other major media outlets, if it doesn't fit the narrative, it doesn't get reported. Of course their are exceptions, like when they try to tear people down, a la, Johnny Football, which they come up with a new narrative.

The idea that Quarterbacks win championships is a load on nonsense. Time and again it has been proven the most complete team wins championships; that is the team with a defense, a running game and then a passing game.

The Patriots won with great defense and a running game. If you look at Super Bowl champions from 2001, Ravens, Patriots, Buccaneers, Patriots, Patriots, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Giants, Pittsburgh, Saints, Packers, Giants and Ravens. Tell me, which of those teams won on the back of a QB? The closest one is the Colts. New England, Pittsburgh, and the Ravens all won in spite of their quarterback.

Most of those teams had great defense, and a solid running game.

I generally agree with you though I think it's easier today to win a SB with a QB dominating and dictating the offensive play. I wouldn't say the Pats won their SBs in spite of Brady as they had top tier offenses with top tier defenses. I'd say it was a cohesive fully integrated team effort.