All of it is silly when you take a step back. When you step back and look at it from an NFL fan perspective, it's awesome that we've seen probably 2 of the best QBs ever and on top of that in a league that wants more passing and scoring to make them even greater. With that said, I hope they both lose in the playoffs
it's not about #s, peyton's #s aren't bad but his play has been. w/ the talent he has played w/ he should have 3-4 SB titles by now. His failures in big games in January have cost his teams multiple chances at championships. His great play in the reg season is a major reason they had those chances but that doesn't absolve him from his playoff failures where he has rarely run into top defenses. why do we discuss anything? isn't everything we argue about really silly?
So basically you think Peyton curls up in January and chokes when the lights get brighter. If it weren't for that he'd have 4 Super Bowls. Is that what you are trying to say?
basically, he has a different look in big games. he plays like he has the weight of the world on his shoulders and forces things rather than allow his playmakers to make plays.
we say this every year then watch him blow it every year. if reg season peyton shows up in January Denver should cruise to a SB title this year. The amount of weapons he has is insane.
Not to me. When talking about great players in any team sport, it usually comes down to silly things and slights here and there because you are trying to talk down the best players in the game. I do it all the time but I'm trying to stop myself from When talking about more flawed players, it comes down to more their actual ability and big flaws. For example, the criticism of Lebron James is going to be more silly than the criticism of Rudy Gay which is more basketball related. Example, Lebron preserving his shooting % but not taking full court buzzer beaters in the regular season vs Rudy Gay just being inefficient scorer at this point in his career. Unless you mean the actual process of arguing is silly, which I disagree with. It's always good to see things from another perspective even if you think the person is 100% wrong. It's let you look at what you think from a more critical view and see why and how people are reaching a different conclusion than you. To circle it back to this thread, nobody ever agrees on QBs because it comes down to team, QB, coaching and how much you weight each when deciding. The original poster decided Tom Brady is not a good playoff QB since 2004 because he has played poorly, they lost to worse QBs, and they haven't won a SB. That's putting a lot of weight on team accomplishments something I disagree with. Postseason below: Brady pre. 2004: 62.5%, 230* ypg, 91.5 rating, 3.62 TD%, 0.99 INT%. Brady post 2004: 62.3%, 267 ypg, 88.1 rating, 5.32 TD%, 3.26 INT%. Even though I disagree with the original poster, I get to see where he's coming from. I would disagree and I would say the main difference between pre 2004 and post 2004 has come more from the lack of defense around Brady than Brady not being good. If I was starting my argument and mainly blaming Brady, I would argue while the expectations from Brady rose, his playoff production did not instead of arguing he hasn't been good. *Note, removed the 2001 Pitt game from ypg stat since Brady didn't play 1/2 the game.
My point is arguing about what other people do that we cannot is really kind of silly. I love it and have fun w/ it but how productive is it for us really? There's no argument, Brady has been Manning like since the 2005 postseason BUT he has still been better and still won more postseason games.
It's funny, because you would think this is common, but not including this year, the twenty best scoring teams in NFL history in order by ppg: 2007 Patriots, did not win SB. 2011 Packers, did not win SB. 1998 Vikings, did not win SB. 2012 Patriots, did not win SB. 2011 Saints, did not win SB. 2000 Rams, did not win SB. 1983 Redskins, did not win SB. 1967 Raiders, did not win SB. 1999 Rams, won SB. 2004 Colts, did not win SB. 2010 Patriots, did not win SB. 1968 Raiders, did not win SB. 1984 Dolphins, did not win SB. 2011 Patriots, did not win SB. 1966 Chiefs, did not win SB. 1982 Chargers, did not win SB. 2009 Saints, won SB. 1996 Cowboys, did not win SB. 1994 49ers, won SB. 2001 Rams, did not win SB. In NFL history, the top 20 scoring teams in the NFL have won the SB 3 times. Overall, they are 3-7 in Super Bowls and when they have lost in the SB, they have never broken 20 points with 17 being the high. Out of the top 20, 10 have come in the 2000s, and only one top offense in the 2000s has won the SB, the 2000 Rams. 7 have come in the last 7 years. 2013 Broncos a current question mark, but in NFL history scoring a lot of points has not led to a high number of Super Bowls.
I don't think it's so silly because it's entertainment. Sports is entertainment and to be digested by us. Movies and music and books are similar. It's productive if you want to learn more about what you are watching. I could say the same thing about that romantic literature class I had to take way back when. How productive is it really for me? (In my career, it's not :grin But we could say that about a LOT if things depending on what productive means.
we can do that w/ defense too. I know this isn't top 15 all time but it gives us an idea. #1 pts allowed: 2012 Seattle 2011 Pitt 2010 Pitt- lost SB 2009 NYJ 2008 Pitt- won SB 2007 Ind 2006 Bal 2005 Chi 2004 Pitt 2003 NE- won SB 2002 TB- won SB 2001 Chi 2000 Bal- won SB since 2000 only 4 teams that led in PPG allowed won the SB and NE in 2003 allowed 14.9 PPG in the reg season and 19 PPg in postseason.
I don't know why we're doing it with defense. You lost me here. You said with the weapons Denver should cruise to a SB, I was just disagreeing because that's a thought that comes up with many high powered offenses and the end results being a SB hasn't happened as often as many might think. Both our lists really show you need balance and a few bounces to win a SB. I think the one thing everyone can agree on, give the 2009 and 2010 Jets Eli Manning's luck and we win a SB. Hail Mary for a TD, muffed punts, two OT wins with defensive turnovers, a catch on a helmet. He likes living on the edge. :wink:
you were just showing #1's, bal had a high powered O when it mattered in postseason last year, GB in 2010, NO 2009, you need an O that makes plays to win not one that gets 14 free pts from STs and loses at home after a bye.
I never said you didn't need an O or D that makes plays. I just said historically, high powered regular season offenses don't win Super Bowls at a high rate as many suspect. So in my opinion, I don't see the Broncos cruising to a SB like you said you do. I don't see where I said you don't need an O. I'm really confused, you said Denver would cruise to a SB, I disagree.
They should cruise to a SB, no great teams in the AFC, homefield, good D and incredible talent around the QB. Much like most of his career(minus the no great teams aspect)
Their D is good? I disagree. Every AFC team is flawed in my opinion. I don't see a well rounded team out of the bunch. For any team to make the SB from the AFC, they are going to need a usually poor or average unit of their team to play better than they did in the regular season.
Their D is good, like many teams w/ top O's their Ds look worse than they actually are b/c the O's score so quickly and so much. Are they a perfect team? about as close as you can be in this era but no team is perfect. The Miller injury hurts them.
Ehh I think you're highly overrating their D. You are right, they face the 3rd most drives in the NFL, but they're 23rd best in TDs per drive, 21st best in 3 and outs, 24th in points in the RZ, 25th in opponents TD percentage, 15th in yards per drive, 19th in points per drive, and 17th in drive success rate. In all of these, #1 means the least amount of everything. They are average to below average in most categories that aren't cumulative so the amount of drives they gave isn't a big deal as compared to cumulative stats.
