Nfl 2009-2010

nyrfan818 said:
You truly and honestly believe that Tom Brady is the third best quarterback that ever lived? What's your reasoning? I'm really quite curious. And you also really believe that Troy Aikman was a better QB than Peyton Manning despite having only 5 3000 yard seasons in his career (you know.. compared to Peyton's 10 4000 yard seasons) and a TD to INT ratio of 165-141? I challenge you to put Peyton on those teams and think about how successful he would have been put in such situations. And you know he would have been just as successful - if not more. And that is why you can not judge players on team success exclusively.
Click to expand...

Manning would have put up similar numbers as Aikman. The offense they employed was not a pass happy offense. It was a possession offense and emphasized the run. The Cowboys would get a lead and just run the ball to grind out the clock. Aikman wasn't throwing the ball downfield up 20-10 in the 4th quarter.

Aikman was one of the most accurate passers to ever play so it's not like Manning is going to improve that area. His career stats suffered due to the offense they employed and he sacrificed personal numbers for wins. Mike Martz made a comment that had he coached Aikman he'd have been a regular 4000 yard passer with 30 TDs per season. That's the difference in offensive philosophies between Turner/Zampese and Martz.

To simplify things I'd say the 90s Cowboys were like the 04-06 Chelsea side grinding out results by suffocating the opponent. Where as Manning's Colts are more like United from 98-03: your score twice, we'll score four.
 
MrMarcello said:
Manning would have put up similar numbers as Aikman. The offense they employed was not a pass happy offense. It was a possession offense and emphasized the run. The Cowboys would get a lead and just run the ball to grind out the clock. Aikman wasn't throwing the ball downfield up 20-10 in the 4th quarter.

Aikman was one of the most accurate passers to ever play so it's not like Manning is going to improve that area. His career stats suffered due to the offense they employed and he sacrificed personal numbers for wins. Mike Martz made a comment that had he coached Aikman he'd have been a regular 4000 yard passer with 30 TDs per season. That's the difference in offensive philosophies between Turner/Zampese and Martz.

To simplify things I'd say the 90s Cowboys were like the 04-06 Chelsea side grinding out results by suffocating the opponent. Where as Manning's Colts are more like United from 98-03: your score twice, we'll score four.
Click to expand...

Manning's career completion percentage is more than 3% higher than Aikman's. If we're looking at it logically, his pass completion percentage should be lower playing in a "sling the ball" type system. If the same QB plays first in a "sling the ball" type system and then in a cautious system, his pass percentage quite sensibly would be better in the cautious system in which a team runs to set up the pass. We can also look at his career interception rate per 100 passes too. Unsurprisingly, it's better than Aikmans. Once again the argument you use would seem to indicate that Peyton's should be worse.

I respect Aikman - he was a very good QB. BUT, he was not better than Peyton Manning. Manning is simply a step above Aikman. Brady above him in a top QB list I can see (even if I disagree with it), but Aikman no.
 
Who the hell said Aikman was better? You're attempting to have a dig at something that was never stated, not by me. I wouldn't put him top 10 either. One thing Manning has consistently had is a great management and coaching staff where as Aikman spent his latter years in an environment that was plagued with on and off the field problems. He certainly deserved far better ending to his career.

The 100 Greatest Quarterbacks of the Modern Era, Version 1.0 - ArmchairGM - Sports Wiki Database
#33: Troy Aikman - Like Bradshaw and Starr, people have a tendency to overrate Aikman because he was a caretaker QB on a great dynasty, but at his peak (1992-95) he was just about as good as any passer ever. It's the years outside of his peak that are the problem, because he had a very rough start on some bad Dallas teams, and a very rough finish on some bad Dallas teams. But, in between, Aikman was a truly great quarterback.

You act as if Manning was playing in a deep bomb offense which he never was. He throws most of his passes on ten yard routes or less. Guys like Harrison, Wayne and Clark get tons of YAC. Completion percentages on the whole are up from the last decade as offenses employ more multi-receiver sets and schemes. It has been a steady climb since the 50s as the forward pass continues to be the way to win. The quick throw to the receiver on the line of scrimmage is used quite frequently today. It's a high percentage throw.

My comment was simply Manning, or any QB for that matter, would have sacrificed personal statistics in the system Dallas employed. Just like a decent QB in a west coast offense is going to put up good stats (see Garcia for example, nowhere near the talent of Montana or Young yet he set a club record for yards passing in one season), a great QB will better those numbers. If you have any knowledge in this sport you'll surely understand.
 
Just for shits and giggles I'll rank my list. But I'll do a top ten for modern era and before the modern era. It's tough to make a list of players I never saw in action so my pre-modern era is based off hear say and various lists.

Old Era (Pre-1980s)
1. Unitas
2. Staubach
3. Tarkenton
4. Van Brocklin
5. Starr
6. Tittle
7. Graham
8. Jurgensen
9. Bradshaw
10. Dawson

Special mention to Sammy Baugh and Sid Luckman who were truly before their time and Bob Griese, possibly the greatest "bus" driver ever. Joking aside he was a quality QB.

Modern Era (Post 1970s)
1a. Montana
1b. Elway
3. Marino
4. Young
5. Manning
6. Favre
7. Fouts
8. Brady
9. Moon
10. Kelly

Special mention to Aikman, Cunningham, McNabb, McNair and Simms.

For debate purposes, had either Elway, Fouts or Marino played on the 1980s/90s SF teams, they'd have won at least 5 SBs (Fouts probably no more than 3 in the 80s though it's probable he'd have made SF better in the 70s and possibly got them into a SB or two). This is no knock on Montana but talent wise those three were above Montana. Montana by sheer luck ended up on a team loaded with talent from upper management down to the practice squad. He was a born leader and was a perfect fit for the offense. Now put Montana on Denver or San Diego or Miami, not complete teams like SF in its pomp, and I'd wager he'd have been fortunate enough to win a single championship. It's also probable Young would have won the two titles in the late 80s that Montana did.
 
What ho, fellows. So I realize the telefax is a bit spotty in the inclement weather and it takes awhile for the aerogyro to deliver the post, but has news of Pete Carroll leaving the University of Southern California for the professional Seattle Sea Hawkes foot-ball club reached the civilised world? Let us all raise a glass of rye and celebrate his departure from the Pacific Coast Conference!

MrMarcello, I would agree with your assessment for the most part. Most of the responsibility for SF's success in the '80s was due to Walsh and the excellent teams he built. Montana was just a part of that.
 
Players like Montana and Fouts benefited from the west coast and air coryell systems they played in. Fouts had an incredibly quick release, second only to Marino's - and Montana had a magical quality that no other quarterback had and only Brady has since showed remote glimpses of - despite his average size, he was extremely calm and self confident and engendered the same in his teammates. The 9ers wouldn't have won any of their SuperBowls during the 80s without him.
 
Raoul said:
Montana had a magical quality that no other quarterback had and only Brady has since showed remote glimpses of - despite his average size, he was extremely calm and self confident and engendered the same in his teammates. The 9ers wouldn't have won any of their SuperBowls during the 80s without him.
Click to expand...

Depends on which QB would replace him in this scenario. Elway or Marino and the championships roll on, DeBerg or Krieg and no championships probably. I'm fairly certain Simms, Theismann, Plunket, et al, would have won in SF.
 
MrMarcello said:
Who the hell said Aikman was better? You're attempting to have a dig at something that was never stated, not by me. I wouldn't put him top 10 either. One thing Manning has consistently had is a great management and coaching staff where as Aikman spent his latter years in an environment that was plagued with on and off the field problems. He certainly deserved far better ending to his career.

The 100 Greatest Quarterbacks of the Modern Era, Version 1.0 - ArmchairGM - Sports Wiki Database
#33: Troy Aikman - Like Bradshaw and Starr, people have a tendency to overrate Aikman because he was a caretaker QB on a great dynasty, but at his peak (1992-95) he was just about as good as any passer ever. It's the years outside of his peak that are the problem, because he had a very rough start on some bad Dallas teams, and a very rough finish on some bad Dallas teams. But, in between, Aikman was a truly great quarterback.

You act as if Manning was playing in a deep bomb offense which he never was. He throws most of his passes on ten yard routes or less. Guys like Harrison, Wayne and Clark get tons of YAC. Completion percentages on the whole are up from the last decade as offenses employ more multi-receiver sets and schemes. It has been a steady climb since the 50s as the forward pass continues to be the way to win. The quick throw to the receiver on the line of scrimmage is used quite frequently today. It's a high percentage throw.

My comment was simply Manning, or any QB for that matter, would have sacrificed personal statistics in the system Dallas employed. Just like a decent QB in a west coast offense is going to put up good stats (see Garcia for example, nowhere near the talent of Montana or Young yet he set a club record for yards passing in one season), a great QB will better those numbers. If you have any knowledge in this sport you'll surely understand.
Click to expand...

You were responding to a comment I made to someone else, who had listed Aikman as better than Manning. Surely you can see why I would believe you thought the same thing, seeing as you were defending Aikman in your post and made no mention as to who you thought was better (also you are a Cowboys fan, right?. I know some crazily deluded Cowboys fans, so you can see why I may think that). Glad that's cleared up though.

I do agree with you though - of course a quarterback is going to sacrifice stats in a system like Dallas employed. So yes, Aikman's stats could look better and stats can't be the only thing used to judge how good a quarterback is/was. And of course, Aikman's stats would look a little nicer in a system like Indy's. But all of that is obvious really.

Alex said:
He's from Jersey, what do you expect.
Click to expand...

Right.
 
MrMarcello said:
Depends on which QB would replace him in this scenario. Elway or Marino and the championships roll on, DeBerg or Krieg and no championships probably. I'm fairly certain Simms, Theismann, Plunket, et al, would have won in SF.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically but probably not. Montana was a special quarterback with leadership skills few other quarterbacks had.
 
nyrfan818 said:
You were responding to a comment I made to someone else, who had listed Aikman as better than Manning. Surely you can see why I would believe you thought the same thing, seeing as you were defending Aikman in your post and made no mention as to who you thought was better (also you are a Cowboys fan, right?. I know some crazily deluded Cowboys fans, so you can see why I may think that). Glad that's cleared up though.

I do agree with you though - of course a quarterback is going to sacrifice stats in a system like Dallas employed. So yes, Aikman's stats could look better and stats can't be the only thing used to judge how good a quarterback is/was. And of course, Aikman's stats would look a little nicer in a system like Indy's. But all of that is obvious really.



Right.
Click to expand...

I think most quarterbacks would have won under the Jimmy Johnson built team the Cowboys had from the late 80s through when Switzer won in 95, still with an obvious foundation of what Jimmy Johnson made. For me Aikman was a solid, consistent quarterback, with good leadership skills. The reason you don't hear his name uttered with the all time greats despite his three SuperBowls, is specifically down to the cast of characters he played around.
 
Looks like I will be getting a closer look at San Francisco and Denver in 2010:

"The previous games in London have had a playoff-like atmosphere to them, so that's always a good thing to play in that type of an environment," Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said. "We'll be ready for the challenge."

"It's a wonderful, historic opportunity for our franchise and will be an unforgettable experience for our players, coaches and fans," Bowlen said.

"London is a wonderful venue for two of the most storied franchises in NFL history to square off," 49ers president Jed York said.

San Francisco coach Mike Singletary, who is giving up a home game to play in London, said his players won't be bothered by the long flight to England.

"I have no doubt that our players will be ready to go," he said. "What a great opportunity it is for us to play in such a setting."
 
KeyserSoze said:
Looks like I will be getting a closer look at San Francisco and Denver in 2010:

"The previous games in London have had a playoff-like atmosphere to them, so that's always a good thing to play in that type of an environment," Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said. "We'll be ready for the challenge."

"It's a wonderful, historic opportunity for our franchise and will be an unforgettable experience for our players, coaches and fans," Bowlen said.

"London is a wonderful venue for two of the most storied franchises in NFL history to square off," 49ers president Jed York said.

San Francisco coach Mike Singletary, who is giving up a home game to play in London, said his players won't be bothered by the long flight to England.
"I have no doubt that our players will be ready to go," he said. "What a great opportunity it is for us to play in such a setting."
Click to expand...

:lol: Any thoughts, Alex? I suppose this means you can't make the drive up north to see this game in person.
 
Ok, this weeked I am going for... Cardinals, Ravens, Dallas, Chargers.

Not knowing anything from the season, I would have now been hoping for Ravens success in the SB quest, but seeing Ray Lewis act like such a cock last week, I now am wanting a Cardinals win, or Chargers. Exciting football, not too many wankers. Saying that, Cowboys are looking good last few weeks. Good luck to all teams bar the Jets, Colts, Ravens and Brett Favre.
 
I'm looking forward to the Cardinals-Saints game, that's definitely got potential to be as entertaining as the Packers and Cardinals game last week
 
My picks (not necessarily who I'll root for)

Saints 41, Cardinals 31 - Saints D will make just enough plays while Brees will carve open the Cardinals secondary

Colts 27, Ravens 13 - Manning is the difference and the Colts defense will outshine the opposing defense

Cowboys 24, Vikings 20 - Both defenses will put pressure on the opposing QB but I think the Cowboys running game will be the difference

Chargers 23, Jets 10 - Chargers are simply that much better than the Jets
 
Sharper often seems to be around the ball when in the air or on the ground. Don't recall a defender ever being around the ball this much. This is why he gets so many fumble recoveries and interceptions. He was incredible in the first half of the season, probably the defensive player of the season at that point. But he hasn't been the same in the second half and lost votes probably. But he'll be all-pro for sure.
 
And Shockey with the TD

I'd like the Cardinals to reach the Superbowl, they make for good games as they score points but can't keep them out
 
This is looking like it could be a blowout for the Saints, Rodgers-Cromartie injured, that's hardly going to help their struggling defence

Oh, and as I type, Bush has a TD, 20-7, kick to come
 
The Cardinals will definitely score more points, the question is whether they can stop Brees. Doesn't look like it.
 
MrMarcello said:
Sharper often seems to be around the ball when in the air or on the ground. Don't recall a defender ever being around the ball this much.
Click to expand...

Not bad, not bad at all

Oh wait, that does seem a bit harsh really, but I guess it's tough to judge how much contact there is
 
EdWeatherall said:
So, who would be the best regardless of form and scoreline
Click to expand...

Minnesota seems to always have a fairly vocal crowd regardless.

Green Bay does as well though it's an outdoor stadium.

The Superdome was very quiet for three quarters when Dallas was manhandling them. But when the Saints are playing great it's probably the most deafening crowd indoors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.