Are You Ready for Some Football

Imran Siddiqui · January 14, 2007, 23:17

Is it just me or does Ned have a bigger persecution complex than just about anyone in history?

Drake Tungsten · January 14, 2007, 23:21

Well I guess it's Mannings year after all.

Manning is to QBs what Schottenheimer is to coaches.

Peyton Manning as one of the best QBs of all time (by the time his career is over)

How 'bout we wait until he wins his first title at any level before we put him up there with Montana, Unitas and Brady?

Ned · January 14, 2007, 23:28

Nah. I am Bears and White Sox fan. The Chicago football and baseball teams are always dismissed even when they are good. Remember, for example, a couple of years ago they said the Sox were the least likely to win at the beginning of the playoffs?

Chicago had the second best record in the NFC last year and lead the NFL in scoring defense. Yet, to start this season, most power raters had them nearer the bottom than the top of the rankings. The know-it-alls dismissed the Bears as a team that had no chance. Most didn't even pick them to win the division.

After a while, you just get sick of it all and wish the Chicago teams would not only win, but win like the '85 Bears did, with awesome domination, or like the 2005 Sox who went 11-1 in the playoffs and had their starters pitch four complete games in a row at one point.

Imran Siddiqui · January 14, 2007, 23:36

Peyton Manning as one of the best QBs of all time (by the time his career is over)

How 'bout we wait until he wins his first title at any level before we put him up there with Montana, Unitas and Brady?

How about we wait until Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, etc, wins a Super Bowl before putting them in the discussion? How about we wait until Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, etc wins a Super Bowl before putting them in the greatest RB discussions? Titles aren't the starting and stopping point in the discussion of the best QB.

I'd think a player who will probably end up as being the top TD man in NFL history and top 5 in yards, in addition to basically running the entire offense, will end up in the discussion just as Marino is today.

[q=Ned]Yet, to start this season, most power raters had them nearer the bottom than the top of the rankings.[/q]

Say what? You'll need to justify that one. The ESPN Power Rankings that you love to hate, had them at 13 in the preseason. Being that there are 32 teams, that's closer to the top.

[q=Ned]Most didn't even pick them to win the division.[/q]

Now THAT is a baldfaced lie.

Drake Tungsten · January 14, 2007, 23:54

How about we wait until Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, etc, wins a Super Bowl before putting them in the discussion?

Fouts isn't going to be very high on anyone's best QBs list. Marino will be closer, but people associate him with his lack of a Super Bowl win more than his gaudy stats. At least he made it to a Super Bowl, though...

How about we wait until Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, etc wins a Super Bowl before putting them in the greatest RB discussions?

Dickerson ain't near the top of anyone's list, either. Sanders might be, but he spent his college and pro career carrying terrible teams and never had a realistic shot at a title. He didn't choke away numerous chances like Manning has at the college and pro level.

I was wrong about one thing, though. Manning managed to win one SEC championship while at Tennessee. So he's got that going for him.

Titles aren't the starting and stopping point in the discussion of the best QB.

No, but they're pretty damn important. That's why Montana and Elway are considered better QBs than Marino and why Brady is a better QB than Manning. Winning when it counts matters.

I'd think a player who will probably end up as being the top TD man in NFL history and top 5 in yards, in addition to basically running the entire offense, will end up in the discussion just as Marino is today.

Or he'll end up like Warren Moon...

Jaguar · January 14, 2007, 23:54

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How 'bout we wait until he wins his first title at any level before we put him up there with Montana, Unitas and Brady?

Anthony Muñoz never won a Superbowl. Although he dominated opposing pass-rushers for over a decade and was a unanimous selection to the hall of fame, he's overrated because he never won a championship. He obviously just racked up stats, while other offensive linemen, like former New England tackle Brandon Gorin, have the Superbowl rings to show that they are truly great players. Sure, Gorin can't even start for Arizona, the worst line in the league, but he makes the plays when it counts and he did just enough to win in the 2004 Superbowl.

Anthony Muñoz fades in the big games, just like Willie Roaf, Walter Jones, and other overrated tackles. What an *******.

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 00:03

Is Anthony Munoz really the best example you could think of? A tackle who retired 15 years ago?

Jaguar · January 15, 2007, 00:04

Well, given that he's almost universally recognized as the best offensive lineman to ever play the game, I think he's an excellent example.

You're much better at trolling over in the regular OT, Drake.

Ned · January 15, 2007, 00:06

BTW, I think it is f*uc*ing great that the overrated Bolts lost to the underrated Pats. How many probowlers do the Bolts have? 25? 50? The Pats have one. Even Brady was ignored in favor of Rivers.

What happened today in San Diego was what is known as "just deserts".

Jaguar · January 15, 2007, 00:07

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, I think it is f*uc*ing great that the overrated Bolts lost to the underrated Pats. How many probowlers do the Bolts have? 25? 50? The Pats have one. Even Brady was ignored in favor of Rivers.

What happened today in San Diego was what is known as "just deserts".

May I ask what the first of the two asterisks stands for?

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 00:16

Well, given that he's almost universally recognized as the best offensive lineman to ever play the game, I think he's an excellent example.

Comparing O lineman to QBs in this case is idiotic. Not only does a QB has vastly more influence over how well his team performs than a tackle does (and, as such, is held responsible when his team fails), but people actually know and care about QBs and what they do. There aren't too many discussions about who the best O lineman of all time is, mostly because people don't care...

It's Will Shields, btw. **** Munoz...

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 00:55

In other news, this may be the dumbest thing I've ever read...

Brady was awful for all but the final drive of the first half. The Chargers executed a solid, conservative game plan. Tomlinson was great on first downs, but the Patriots defense wasn't concerned as long as Tomlinson didn't bust long touchdown runs. Tomlinson wasn't going to beat them with 10-yard runs.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playof...ohn&id=2731470

Imran Siddiqui · January 15, 2007, 00:56

So Bradshaw is considered a better QB than Marino because he has the rings? No one says that.. aside from nutso Steelers fans.

And of course Fouts is in the mix. He's one of the Top 10 QBs of all time. No doubt higher than Bradshaw, for one. Why is it his fault that his defenses generally sucked ass, oh and the fact that he had little running game?

It's the biggest bullshit in the world. Elway was a great QB, but then he wins the SuperBowl twice because he has Terrell Davis (lets be honest here) and suddenly he's the best ever? Bull.

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 01:03

So Bradshaw is considered a better QB than Marino because he has the rings?

Why not? Marino's stats are better, but Bradshaw came through in the clutch.

And of course Fouts is in the mix. He's one of the Top 10 QBs of all time.

I was thinking more Top 5. Dickerson would probably be in too if we're talking Top 10 running backs of all time.

Elway was a great QB, but then he wins the SuperBowl twice because he has Terrell Davis (lets be honest here) and suddenly he's the best ever?

Elway's not the best ever. He was better than Marino, though.

Imran Siddiqui · January 15, 2007, 01:07

Why not? Marino's stats are better, but Bradshaw came through in the clutch.

With this statement you lose. Go join Ned in the dunces corner.

Next you'll try to take the troll to another level and claim Namath was better than Marino

.

Elway's not the best ever.

Plenty will argue that he is. Especially for a few years after he retired.

But of course he isn't. Unitas is. Imagine Johnny U's numbers against a defense that wasn't allowed to bump receivers all the way down the field.

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 01:07

Besides, you should like Bradshaw. He was happy to get his QB rating up into the 80's just like your boy Vick...

Unitas is.

No. Wasn't even the best of his era. Bart Starr was better...

Imran Siddiqui · January 15, 2007, 01:14

Unitas >>> Starr

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 01:17

You can't **** with 5 NFL championships and two Super Bowl titles. I'll take a proven winner over a stat machine on any given Sunday.

Imran Siddiqui · January 15, 2007, 01:19

Starr was good at handing off the ball... which is nice, but Unitas was a better QB. Interestingly, Starr's best year for passing yards was eclipsed by Unitas 10 times during his career... and most of those 10 years it wasn't even close.

Someone had to hand off in those great Packers teams I guess. Hornung and Taylor weren't going to take direct snaps.

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 01:22

Starr was a great passer. You'd know that if you were smart enough to look at something other than passing yards.

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 01:25

Most overrated great quarterback: Johnny Unitas. Most underrated: Bart Starr. I made this point more than a year ago, but all the sentimental postmortems of Unitas' career make it necessary to reiterate a few facts. First, while Unitas was undeniably one of the three or four or five greatest quarterbacks in NFL history, he has been vastly overrated as a big-game player. The legendary 1958 and 1959 title-game victories over the New York Giants weren't merely the most famous championship games that Unitas ever won, they were the only championship games that Unitas ever won. Johnny U's entire 1960s career was one long frustrating attempt to live up to that early big-game glory. He never came close, a fact which seems to have eluded otherwise astute NFL historians such as Paul Zimmerman and Peter King.

Second, Bart Starr dominated Unitas in head-to-head matchups during the 1960s, winning 10 of 15 straight up and consistently beating the teams Unitas couldn't (for instance, the Jim Brown-led Cleveland Browns of the mid-sixties and the '67 "Fearsome Foursome" L.A. Rams). At the time, it was argued that Starr's success was due to the marked superiority of the Packers over the Colts from 1960 to 1967, but a quick glance at the record shows us that isn't true. Over that eight-year span, the Packers won just a handful more games than the Colts. The Packers won five championships in those eight years to the Colts' none, primarily because the Packers -- primarily because of Bart Starr -- were better in big games. At one point, in '65 and '66, they beat the Colts five straight times.

http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col...ted/index.html

Bart Starr = Tom Brady

Johnny Unitas = Peyton Manning

Imran Siddiqui · January 15, 2007, 01:27

Hey, when you team runs successfully all day, it can help your completion percentage when you actually decide to throw... just ask Ben Roethlisburger.

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 01:28

Excuses, excuses...

Imran Siddiqui · January 15, 2007, 01:33

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col...ted/index.html

Mr. Barra also has this gem:

Another unfair S.I. overrated is Joe Namath, because his post-Super Bowl career was, well, overrated. That is not to the point. Everyone knows what Namath was capable of before his knees began to give out. For two or perhaps three seasons he was clearly the best in the game and would have remained so if not for injury.

Clearly the best in the game for 2 or 3 seasons? Consider Namath only had two years in which he threw for more TDs than Ints, and both of those he barely did so. Now his SuperBowl season was clearly his best year with 4007 yards, but with 26 TDs to 18 Ints and 52% completion percentage, but the yardage numbers and TDs were a huge outlier and he never came close before or since.

And this is who you want to trust on overrated vs. underrated?

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2007, 01:37

His previous column on Starr vs. Unitas was just as convincing.

Donegeal · January 15, 2007, 08:08

Originally posted by mrmitchell
I want San Diego to win, but it will probably be the Pats
I want Philly to win, but it will probably be the Saints
I want the Colts to win. They have a good chance.
And Chicago will win. Period.

Typical liberal thinking... what the hell does it MEAN????

Are the bold faced teams your picks?

If not, it looks to me like the only game you actually picked was the Bear game.

What do you guys think?

-Jrabbit · January 15, 2007, 08:14

I want to see everyone jumping on the Saints bandwagon. The Bears play SO much better when they're being dissed. (Ex: Seattle and Giants games)

Siege mentality rules!

Donegeal · January 15, 2007, 08:24

APOLYTON PLAYOFF PICK'EM!!!

6-2 Imran
6-2 Jaguar
6-2 Zopperoni
6-2 mrmitchell (somehow, he picked EVERYBODY last week!!!)
5-3 -Jrabbit
5-3 Slowwhand
4-4 Donegeal
4-4 Darsnan
4-4 reismark
4-4 Jonny
4-4 joncha
3-5 Ozzy
3-5 Ned
3-5 Ben Kenobi
0-8 Ming

A few notes:
Jaguar... of everybody up there... I want you to win.
Imran... hell, I'd even want you to win. But please! SOMEONE BEAT...
Zopperoni!
mrmitchell... make a pick and stick with, you pansy...

Ming... stellar job once again!

OzzyKP · January 15, 2007, 09:16

Originally posted by Donegeal

Typical liberal thinking... what the hell does it MEAN????

Are the bold faced teams your picks?

If not, it looks to me like the only game you actually picked was the Bear game.

What do you guys think?

I'm pretty sure the bolded teams are his picks.