NFL 2016/17

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raoul said:
Rings alone is the problem. Bradshaw over Marino, Eli Manning over Jim Kelly and Tarkenton, Joe Flacco over Dan Fouts, Brad Johnson over [the] Warren Moon etc.
Click to expand...

Agree. rings alone are a problem - Trent Dilfer (Dilfer a SB winning QB :lol:) - but, players like Montana and Brady didn't just win rings - they were the driving force behind the wins. Guys who have repeatedly been recognized by not just players from the past, the media, but also their peers. I just thought it was an incredible oversight to not include Montana in any conversation about the best ever.
 
Neutral said:
Agree. rings alone are a problem - Trent Dilfer (Dilfer a SB winning QB :lol:) - but, players like Montana and Brady didn't just win rings - they were the driving force behind the wins. Guys who have repeatedly been recognized by not just players from the past, the media, but also their peers. I just thought it was an incredible oversight to not include Montana in any conversation about the best ever.
Click to expand...

To properly contextualize things, the chat i was having yesterday was more of a comparison between Rodgers and Brady (given this year's playoffs) where some were saying Rodgers is the goat. That obviously didn't fly with others who have a memory beyond 5 years.
 
You could make two lists: Greatest QB and Greatest Passer that may look something like this:

QB:
1. Brady
2. Montana
3. Manning
4. Unitas
5. Elway


Passer:
1. Manning
2. Favre
3. Brees
4. Marino
5. Rodgers
 
Rado_N said:
It does hold up though. It's obviously an extreme example but the point still stands.

As someone said above, put Brady by himself into the Jags or Browns and he's not winning anything. SB wins are too simplistic a measure.

Eli isn't on the same level as Peyton, for example, in spite of them both having 2.
Click to expand...

But surely none of the quarterbacks who are "top" would be anywhere near as good as even they were if they played for todays Browns or Jags. That is just as nonsensical an argument as trying to define a career by just rings.

Bottom line is, anyone who picks on one thing and one thing only to define someones ranking at a sport/position is daft. You amalgamate everything and come up with a reason.

It's clear though that there are plenty on here who clearly have something against Brady, and it clouds their judgement. They just say that he only did it because of Belichik because they want to believe it.

But in truth, whilst no doubt having him has probably enhanced his career, it isn't only what has made him great. I'd be willing to engage in a much deeper discussion of why, but there are plenty who wouldn't even want to listen lol.
 
rpitroda said:
But surely none of the quarterbacks who are "top" would be anywhere near as good as even they were if they played for todays Browns or Jags. That is just as nonsensical an argument as trying to define a career by just rings.

Bottom line is, anyone who picks on one thing and one thing only to define someones ranking at a sport/position is daft. You amalgamate everything and come up with a reason.

It's clear though that there are plenty on here who clearly have something against Brady, and it clouds their judgement. They just say that he only did it because of Belichik because they want to believe it.

But in truth, whilst no doubt having him has probably enhanced his career, it isn't only what has made him great. I'd be willing to engage in a much deeper discussion of why, but there are plenty who wouldn't even want to listen lol.
Click to expand...

Bold - absolutely
Italics - I don't think anyone had said anything like that.
 
Here's a popular debate in Western NY.

Which is more of an achievement?

1) Going to 4 straight Super Bowls but losing all 4 (including 3 where you failed to compete for more than a half of the game). Something only one team has ever done.
2) Going to 2 straight and winning both, achieved by multiple teams.
3) Going to 3 straight and winning 2. (I always added this to the mix because people forget that the Miami Dolphins did this in the 70's) Losing to Dallas , beating Washington, beating Minnesota

Now to start you have to admit each of the three is in itself is an accomplishment.

Being a Dolphin fan I always went with #3 as the best , especially when you add in going 17-0 when playing most of the season with your back up QB. Then winning two straight. Then going to 4 straight (remember this also occurred at the midst of a 13 year streak where the AFC did not win a Super Bowl and really it was 15 out of 16 they did not win) and losing them all.

Now to be clear I am not calling those Dolphins the greatest team of all time, I am just saying in terms of this discussion, their achievement comes out on top, at least in the eyes of a Dolphin fan. :p
 
JustAFan said:
Here's a popular debate in Western NY.

Which is more of an achievement?

1) Going to 4 straight Super Bowls but losing all 4 (including 3 where you failed to compete for more than a half of the game). Something only one team has ever done.
2) Going to 2 straight and winning both, achieved by multiple teams.
3) Going to 3 straight and winning 2. (I always added this to the mix because people forget that the Miami Dolphins did this in the 70's) Losing to Dallas , beating Washington, beating Minnesota

Now to start you have to admit each of the three is in itself is an accomplishment.

Being a Dolphin fan I always went with #3 as the best , especially when you add in going 17-0 when playing most of the season with your back up QB. Then winning two straight. Then going to 4 straight (remember this also occurred at the midst of a 13 year streak where the AFC did not win a Super Bowl and really it was 15 out of 16 they did not win) and losing them all.

Now to be clear I am not calling those Dolphins the greatest team of all time, I am just saying in terms of this discussion, their achievement comes out on top, at least in the eyes of a Dolphin fan. :p
Click to expand...

Obviously going to 3 and winning two would be preferable to only going to two. That's a no brainer.

As for a the Dolphins, its been sad watching the decades long demise of a once great franchise.
 
Raoul said:
That's precisely why you don't go by rings or stats individually. You have to combine them to form an opinion. We all know rings by themselves are a misleading variable since if you give them too much weight then you have to answer why you think Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer or Joe Flacco are better than Dan Marino and Fran Tarkenton. That said, when you add rings and stats into the mix then you can look at who has won the most and what are their individual career stats like. When you do that Brady is comfortably on top.

Also, I often hear arguments like - Brady played for a great team, put Rodgers on the Patriots and Brady on the Packers and Rodgers would be better. This imo is a meaningless hypothetical that will never be realized and should therefore be eliminated from the discussion. What should be included are the real results each player has achieved over their careers.
Click to expand...
I disagree, assigning a quarterback as the best ever is also a meaningless thing really, but it's fun for us fans of the game and that's why we do it. Engaging in hypotheticals triggers rational debate more often than not in these cases.
Raoul said:
To properly contextualize things, the chat i was having yesterday was more of a comparison between Rodgers and Brady (given this year's playoffs) where some were saying Rodgers is the goat. That obviously didn't fly with others who have a memory beyond 5 years.
Click to expand...
I have a memory beyond five years and would say Rodgers is the best I have seen. I'm not sure why people are so against the idea really. All I need to ask myself is, "who else could complete play x or throw y". For a lot of what Rodgers has done the list is limited, and Brady's name is less common than that of Elway's or Montana.
It's the way sports go as training methods improve etc. Look at football, does anyone truly think the greats of the 60/70s could cope with the speed of today's game? In thirty years someone better than Rodgers will come along no doubt.
As this is the case, we have to compare players to their peers, and at this stage Rodgers stands alone in all around ability.
Raoul said:
You could make two lists: Greatest QB and Greatest Passer that may look something like this:

QB:
1. Brady
2. Montana
3. Manning
4. Unitas
5. Elway


Passer:
1. Manning
2. Favre
3. Brees
4. Marino
5. Rodgers
Click to expand...
I'd love to see Peyton throw a thirty yard strike dead on the money while on the run. Rodgers has the best arm talent probably ever. Intangibles is where Manning might edge him, the passer list isn't very good.
 
altodevil86 said:
I disagree, assigning a quarterback as the best ever is also a meaningless thing really, but it's fun for us fans of the game and that's why we do it. Engaging in hypotheticals triggers rational debate more often than not in these cases.

I have a memory beyond five years and would say Rodgers is the best I have seen. I'm not sure why people are so against the idea really. All I need to ask myself is, "who else could complete play x or throw y". For a lot of what Rodgers has done the list is limited, and Brady's name is less common than that of Elway's or Montana.
It's the way sports go as training methods improve etc. Look at football, does anyone truly think the greats of the 60/70s could cope with the speed of today's game? In thirty years someone better than Rodgers will come along no doubt.
As this is the case, we have to compare players to their peers, and at this stage Rodgers stands alone in all around ability.

I'd love to see Peyton throw a thirty yard strike dead on the money while on the run. Rodgers has the best arm talent probably ever. Intangibles is where Manning might edge him, the passer list isn't very good.
Click to expand...

These are all hypotheticals and thought experiments that will never be realized. All you have to go on with Rodgers is what he has actually done. He didn't play much during his first three years and has had a great career for the past 8-9 years. Rodgers is probably the most accurate passer ever, but that is just one of many components on the stat page that people look at.
 
fishfingers15 said:
I've seen a lot of Twitter Rumors. Most of NFL moves on Twitter seems to be real and leaked, so I figured it's closer to truth.
Click to expand...

He would be the leading contender given his current status in Dallas - although it would be expensive. Some are also talking up a potential Philip Rivers trade. Both are 37 and 36 respectively, so neither would in particular be a long term solution. It also depends on what the new coach thinks since Siemian and Lynch were Kubiak guys.

Given the choices, if I'm Elway, I put all my marbles into continuing to develop Siemian and possibly looking at someone like Brad Kaaya in the 4th or 5th round. This would save the Broncos a boatload of money they would have to spend on an ageing Romo and allow them to reapportion their resources towards beefing up their O-Line and running game.
 
Romo to Broncos is being bandied about because it makes sense....Romo at his age, obviously wants to go to a contender. Broncos know Romo could be a brilliant fit - but they probably don't wanna give up anything meaningful for a guy who is one hit away from doing something awful to his back AGAIN.

Broncos ideally want the Cowboys to release Romo - win-win for player and team. Not so much for Jerry Jones and Cowboys.

Jones ideally wants to keep Romo - even with the massive cap hit, talk about a competent backup :lol:

This is going to come down to Romo begging Jerry to release him and Jerry Jones loving Romo enough to let him go.
 
Raoul said:
To properly contextualize things, the chat i was having yesterday was more of a comparison between Rodgers and Brady (given this year's playoffs) where some were saying Rodgers is the goat. That obviously didn't fly with others who have a memory beyond 5 years.
Click to expand...

It's a very difficult debate but Rodgers has one thing that Brady doesn't have, he can run and run fast.
 
Neutral said:
Agree. rings alone are a problem - Trent Dilfer (Dilfer a SB winning QB :lol:) - but, players like Montana and Brady didn't just win rings - they were the driving force behind the wins. Guys who have repeatedly been recognized by not just players from the past, the media, but also their peers. I just thought it was an incredible oversight to not include Montana in any conversation about the best ever.
Click to expand...

Not the way that people think. Tom Brady threw for 145 yards in his first superbowl win. The real reason they won was the defense holding the greatest show on turf to 17 points.
 
JPRouve said:
It's a very difficult debate but Rodgers has one thing that Brady doesn't have, he can run and run fast.
Click to expand...
'mobile'...more than 'fast' and the real kicker - he has uncanny power and accuracy while throwing on the run. Helping to extend plays and make life hell for the opposing secondary
 
I'm not clicking anything that says woody paige anal. Denver should go for Romo. This defense isn't going to last forever, the window is now. They need a quarterback who can win while they have the rest of the team around him or they risk blowing years of contention like the Ravens did with Kyle Boller.
 
Raoul said:
He's not particularly fast - Brady is however really slow. If you want fast see RG3
Click to expand...

It's relative he isn't the fastest QB in the league but Rodgers is an actual passing QB, he is exceptional at passing and reading defenses and among the QBs with those characteristic he and Smith are fast. Obviously that's only my opinion.
 
Eboue said:
I'm not clicking anything that says woody paige anal. Denver should go for Romo. This defense isn't going to last forever, the window is now. They need a quarterback who can win while they have the rest of the team around him or they risk blowing years of contention like the Ravens did with Kyle Boller.
Click to expand...

Why would a 37 year old Romo who hasn't played in a while be that solution ? If you had clicked on the link you would've been reminded of the financial hit the Broncos would have to take to get him.
 
Raoul said:
Why would a 37 year old Romo who hasn't played in a while be that solution ? If you had clicked on the link you would've been reminded of the financial hit the Broncos would have to take to get him.
Click to expand...

Because Tony Romo is really good at football and Trevor Siemian is really not. Denver has $33 million in cap space. Cutting Okung saves 11 million. They would have to make other choices because of it but when you can get an elite quarterback during the closing stages of your teams window of contention, you have to do that.
 
Eboue said:
Because Tony Romo is really good at football and Trevor Siemian is really not. Denver has $33 million in cap space. Cutting Okung saves 11 million. They would have to make other choices because of it but when you can get an elite quarterback during the closing stages of your teams window of contention, you have to do that.
Click to expand...

Romo has barely played in two years and is so good at football that he was just sent to the bench by a rookie. All things said, I doubt the Broncos would be enamoured by blowing their cap money on Romo when they could be landing a great OL or two, or a quality RB. Elway may however still go with Romo, but he's far from the player he once was and Siemian will only get better over time.
 
Raoul said:
Romo has barely played in two years and is so good at football that he was just sent to the bench by a rookie. All things said, I doubt the Broncos would be enamoured by blowing their cap money on Romo when they could be landing a great OL or two, or a quality RB. Elway may however still go with Romo, but he's far from the player he once was and Siemian will only get better over time.
Click to expand...

That's very misleading. He wasn't "sent to the bench by a rookie", he was hurt and replaced by a player who is going to the pro bowl as a rookie. I don't think it is a given that Siemian will get better either. For one, he got worse as the season progressed this year. For two, he is a 7th round pick who threw more interceptions than touchdowns in his senior year of college.
 
Eboue said:
That's very misleading. He wasn't "sent to the bench by a rookie", he was hurt and replaced by a player who is going to the pro bowl as a rookie. I don't think it is a given that Siemian will get better either. For one, he got worse as the season progressed this year. For two, he is a 7th round pick who threw more interceptions than touchdowns in his senior year of college.
Click to expand...

Its not misleading. Do you think Romo would start for Dallas next year ? If not, then he's been permanently displaced by a Rookie.
And what does Siemian's college record have to do with his situation in Denver ?
 
I agree with Eboue. Romo is a very good player. Denver has all the weapons on defence. They need to sort out their O Line and they'll be a SB team again. There's no point in having a stellar defence playing their best of their careers while allowing a rookie QB to mature. Romo as a player will also be desperate for glory and potentially could work out reduced salary if it means coming to Denevr.
 
fishfingers15 said:
I agree with Eboue. Romo is a very good player. Denver has all the weapons on defence. They need to sort out their O Line and they'll be a SB team again. There's no point in having a stellar defence playing their best of their careers while allowing a rookie QB to mature. Romo as a player will also be desperate for glory and potentially could work out reduced salary if it means coming to Denevr.
Click to expand...

If they're going to do something like that, they may be better off with Rivers. He has actually played over the past two years and thrown for 9,000 yards. The Chargers are switching coaches and also leaving San Diego, so this may be a good time to move for him.
 
Raoul said:
If they're going to do something like that, they may be better off with Rivers. He has actually played over the past two years and thrown for 9,000 yards. The Chargers are switching coaches and also leaving San Diego, so this may be a good time to move for him.
Click to expand...

I personally think Romo is a better QB than Rivers, but Rivers could also be an excellent option for Denver.
 
fishfingers15 said:
I personally think Romo is a better QB than Rivers, but Rivers could also be an excellent option for Denver.
Click to expand...

We just don't know with Romo since he hasn't played a full season since 2014. That's an eternity in NFL years. Would the Broncos get that player or the one who just got sidelined by a rookie.
 
Raoul said:
Its not misleading. Do you think Romo would start for Dallas next year ? If not, then he's been permanently displaced by a Rookie.
And what does Siemian's college record have to do with his situation in Denver ?
Click to expand...

He's been permanently displaced by a pro bowl caliber player. College performance is one of the best indicators of future NFL performance. It is especially relevant given how little a body of work Siemian has in the NFL.
 
Eboue said:
He's been permanently displaced by a pro bowl caliber player. College performance is one of the best indicators of future NFL performance. It is especially relevant given how little a body of work Siemian has in the NFL.
Click to expand...

Prescot had a great year, but that was obviously supported by a great offensive line and the best running back in the league. The Broncos had neither of the two to support Siemian, who still managed a decent year. Siemian's college career is completely irrelevant since the circumstances of his college and pro teams are completely different. Its pretty bizarre that this even has to be reinforced. Elway and Kubiak, who know a thing or two about the QB position, were obviously sure he was good enough to take over from Manning, but they failed to provide him with the appropriate O-Line and RB support.
 
Raoul said:
Prescot had a great year, but that was obviously supported by a great offensive line and the best running back in the league. The Broncos had neither of the two to support Siemian, who still managed a decent year. Siemian's college career is completely irrelevant since the circumstances of his college and pro teams are completely different. Its pretty bizarre that this even has to be reinforced. Elway and Kubiak, who know a thing or two about the QB position, were obviously sure he was good enough to take over from Manning, but they failed to provide him with the appropriate O-Line and RB support.
Click to expand...

He didn't have a decent year though, he finished 29th in QBR. What is bizarre is that you refuse to consider his college career or draft position, both of which are generally good indicators of future NFL performance. It's clear from your phrasing re: Prescott that you already have your mind made up. For all the things Elway and Kubiak know, it didn't stop them from offering osweiler $16 million per year and $30 million guaranteed.
 
Eboue said:
He didn't have a decent year though, he finished 29th in QBR. What is bizarre is that you refuse to consider his college career or draft position, both of which are generally good indicators of future NFL performance. It's clear from your phrasing re: Prescott that you already have your mind made up. For all the things Elway and Kubiak know, it didn't stop them from offering osweiler $16 million per year and $30 million guaranteed.
Click to expand...

The rating is just one of many metrics to look at. He passed for 3400 yards and 18 TDs in only 14 games played is another. That's about a 4000 yard pace, which no rational person would deny is less than decent for someone who is ostensibly a rookie. The 2nd issue that is important to note is the Broncos had a pretty pitiful running game this year. You can't expect a young QB to get a high passer rating if he is constantly under pressure because the opposing Ds know the Broncos are likely to pass because they can't run it. Give the Broncos a good OLine and RB next year and you'll see Sieman's numbers improve dramatically. Mind you, the Broncos haven't had an 1000 yard rusher since 2013, but you can get away with that sort of thing a bit when you have a GOAT contender like Manning calling the shots - not if you have an inexperienced young QB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.