Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The 2014 NFL Thread!

124»

Comments

  • Options
    mwhitt80mwhitt80 Posts: 4,617
    Matt said:


    My issue is more about the spin of the game for Peyton. Before the game, it was all about how a win would add his face to the Mt. Rushmore of QBs. After the Broncos lost (Peyton's performance assisted with that), the game is being downplayed as nothing. If a win cements him, then a loss should also effect his QB greatness.

    The 18-1 season did effect Brady's legacy. With now being 3-2 in Super Bowls, he'll never top Montana as the best of the elite.

    M

    Yeah Peyton was awful, and this should be a knock against his legacy. Along with all his other terrible playoff preformances. We should also mention he had to out gun rex grossman for is one ring.

    If Brady had won the 2008 Superbowl he would be mentioned before Montana even if he lost the rematch with the Giants. 4 SB victories in 8 years with one of them being with the NFLs most dominate offense and an undefeated season.

    I love the legacy of Joe and he was the king when I started watching (I hated the 49ers back then). But that 2008 SB would have put the Belicheat/Brady Pats ;) over those 49er teams.
  • Options
    MattMatt Posts: 4,457
    mwhitt80 said:

    Matt said:


    My issue is more about the spin of the game for Peyton. Before the game, it was all about how a win would add his face to the Mt. Rushmore of QBs. After the Broncos lost (Peyton's performance assisted with that), the game is being downplayed as nothing. If a win cements him, then a loss should also effect his QB greatness.

    The 18-1 season did effect Brady's legacy. With now being 3-2 in Super Bowls, he'll never top Montana as the best of the elite.

    M

    Yeah Peyton was awful, and this should be a knock against his legacy. Along with all his other terrible playoff preformances. We should also mention he had to out gun rex grossman for is one ring.

    If Brady had won the 2008 Superbowl he would be mentioned before Montana even if he lost the rematch with the Giants. 4 SB victories in 8 years with one of them being with the NFLs most dominate offense and an undefeated season.

    I love the legacy of Joe and he was the king when I started watching (I hated the 49ers back then). But that 2008 SB would have put the Belicheat/Brady Pats ;) over those 49er teams.
    I think JoeMon would still be ranked higher. He didn't have any picks in the Super Bowl.

    M

    And since September 10, 2007, guess what team has had the best winning percentage. Looks like since being observed doing the same recon as other teams post-policy release, they have been even better!
  • Options
    mwhitt80mwhitt80 Posts: 4,617
    Matt said:


    I think JoeMon would still be ranked higher. He didn't have any picks in the Super Bowl.

    M

    And since September 10, 2007, guess what team has had the best winning percentage. Looks like since being observed doing the same recon as other teams post-policy release, they have been even better!

    You know I was messing with you about about the spying. see the ;) face. You haven't got to try to defend your boys on an 8 year old story.

    It's Seattle that needs to be trying to defend how their team is more 'roided up than the 1970s Steelers (oops I "mean adderalled up"). or how Richard Sherman wasn't suspended this year bc he won an appeal using Braun Defense.

    Back to the real debate. I think you undervalue what could have been 19-0. It never would have been matched.
  • Options
    KrescanKrescan Posts: 623
    mwhitt80 said:

    Matt said:

    Last week guys were saying this is a legacy game for Peyton; a win cementing his season & position as the greatest QB. After the loss, those same guys were saying this loss really means nothing.

    So, either its a defining legacy or not. The game's outcome shouldn't define the significance of the game.

    M

    I actually agree with some of that.
    Sometimes (as in this case for Peyton) the game's significance is more important than the outcome (and the outcome does affect his legacy). We can say the same thing about 2008 Superbowl for Brady.

    Then in other cases the outcome defines the significance of the game (The Rise of NE and Tom Brady vs. the Rams in 2001). The 2001 Superbowl is an interesting case if the Rams win we look at Kurt Warner's legacy differently (The Rams were in a Bronco like situation).
    I still protest the outcome of that game. The "game winning" field goal was kicked with 5 seconds on the clock, it clears the uprights with 2 seconds on the clock and for some reason the game is over. The Rams returner Az-Zahir Hakim was a Devin Hester-like returner that year and should have at least had a shot.

    Also I didn't watch many Bronco games this year, did they always use screen and 5 yard passes? I don't think they went over 10 yards on a play more than 5 times. The seahawks played a very dominant game but I don't think the Broncos had the right game plan for them

  • Options
    MattMatt Posts: 4,457
    mwhitt80 said:

    Matt said:


    I think JoeMon would still be ranked higher. He didn't have any picks in the Super Bowl.

    M

    And since September 10, 2007, guess what team has had the best winning percentage. Looks like since being observed doing the same recon as other teams post-policy release, they have been even better!

    You know I was messing with you about about the spying. see the ;) face. You haven't got to try to defend your boys on an 8 year old story.

    It's Seattle that needs to be trying to defend how their team is more 'roided up than the 1970s Steelers (oops I "mean adderalled up"). or how Richard Sherman wasn't suspended this year bc he won an appeal using Braun Defense.

    Back to the real debate. I think you undervalue what could have been 19-0. It never would have been matched.
    I knew you were messing with me. I guess you're right, but did the QB for the '72 Dolphins get legendary status? The perfect season would've been amazing, but I think the critics would've still brought up the interceptions.

    Imagine if Brady leads 2 more Super Bowl winning teams. That'd be 5-2. Would he bump JoeMon as #1?

    M

  • Options
    GregGreg Posts: 1,946
    Matt said:

    mwhitt80 said:

    Matt said:


    I think JoeMon would still be ranked higher. He didn't have any picks in the Super Bowl.

    M

    And since September 10, 2007, guess what team has had the best winning percentage. Looks like since being observed doing the same recon as other teams post-policy release, they have been even better!

    You know I was messing with you about about the spying. see the ;) face. You haven't got to try to defend your boys on an 8 year old story.

    It's Seattle that needs to be trying to defend how their team is more 'roided up than the 1970s Steelers (oops I "mean adderalled up"). or how Richard Sherman wasn't suspended this year bc he won an appeal using Braun Defense.

    Back to the real debate. I think you undervalue what could have been 19-0. It never would have been matched.
    I knew you were messing with me. I guess you're right, but did the QB for the '72 Dolphins get legendary status? The perfect season would've been amazing, but I think the critics would've still brought up the interceptions.

    Imagine if Brady leads 2 more Super Bowl winning teams. That'd be 5-2. Would he bump JoeMon as #1?

    M

    It would in my book and should, but you'll have a group of people saying Joe never lost any of his Superbowls and won't give Tom that spot.
  • Options
    if SB wins are a factor, then Trent Dilfer is better than Fran Trakenton... =)) =)) =))
  • Options
    rebisrebis Posts: 1,820

    if SB wins are a factor, then Trent Dilfer is better than Fran Trakenton... =)) =)) =))

    and Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Bert Jones, Ken Anderson
Sign In or Register to comment.