Jump to content

2016 NFL Super Bowl Pick'em


Recommended Posts

If that happened, that would've cemented - my opinion - Brady as the best ever. Right now, he is up there. Very close.

 

Out of curiosity who do you got ahead? I figured winning this one sealed the argument myself. The Montana argument is fading with Brady having surpassed him in rings and having led his team for so long.

 

A lot of me wants to say it's still Manning since he's got the stats advantage and no one can match him in terms of personally running an offense. But how do you compete with 5 Super Bowls, 4 Super Bowl MVPs, 5 4th quarter game-winning drives in those Super Bowls, 7 AFC Championships, 11 AFC Championship appearances, and 14 AFC East Division titles in 15 seasons?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If any two teams can do it...it will be those two.

While I would love to see that someday too, I'm having a really hard time figuring out how two teams can lose a game at the same time.

If the Browns aren't in it this year, I guess I'll have to go with the Patriots.   Would love to see a Browns vs. Lions Super Bowl someday.

Well, just making the argument but Montana played better in the Super Bowl than Brady, Manning played better in the regular season. You are essentially splitting hairs really. I think the 3 best ever in some order are Unitas, Montana, Brady. With Manning likely 4th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, just making the argument but Montana played better in the Super Bowl than Brady, Manning played better in the regular season.

Agreed on both counts. But then Brady when you factor in the playoff success against Manning and the regular season and overall volume of playoff accomplishments against Montana, and it becomes a lot tougher.

 

Like I said, I'd like to make the argument for Manning since I like him better and wish he could have gotten another ring or two, no other player left me with a feeling that they were just playing on a different level than anybody else, including Brady. But it's just hard to argue with the results. One little thing to note though, Manning did end up with a winning record against Brady in the playoffs (3-2, plus 3-1 in AFC Championship Games). Something that few people noticed due to Brady winning the first 6 meetings between the two and the first two playoff games. But after 2005, Manning never lost to Brady in the playoffs again (and Brady was still maturing into a truly great quarterback by then).

 

As for Unitas, that's a guy that was great for his era, but I just can't give serious consideration to a a guy who only threw 37 more touchdowns than interceptions in his career for the title of greatest ever. Yeah, I know that was fine for the time, different rules and all, but it just goes to show how much more valuable QBs are to their teams today, and that doesn't even get into how much more competition there is for these slots. I've got to put several quarterbacks ahead of him. It almost feels like a nod to history that he is expected to be high on these types of lists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the thread so I don't know what has or hasn't been covered but my argument for Manning over his contemporaries is 7 first team All-Pros, 5 MVPs (2 "runner-ups"), including receiving 44% of *all* MVP votes from 2003-2013. Those are individual honors in which he was in direct competition with his peers.

 

That part of the argument in particular so thoroughly eviscerates the competition that it isn't close.

 

He went to Super Bowls with *four* different head coaches in two different franchises, winning two of them. Brady, probably unfairly, suffers from a bit of entanglement with Belichick.

 

Yes, I have a horse in the race. Yes, there are compelling arguments for Brady.

 

Football Perspective, which you absolutely should follow on twitter or read every once in a while on your spare time, is doing a "Wisdom of the Crowds GOAT QB" discussion this week: http://www.footballperspective.com/wisdom-of-crowds-quarterback-edition-2017/

 

Some good arguments all around.

 

My methodology is in the comments (Garrison), but my ranking (of the top 2 tiers) went

 

Manning

Montana

Unitas

Marino

Brady

-

Favre

Young

Elway

Baugh

Graham

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you have Brady way too low and Favre too high. Also, wouldn't have Young top 10 although he was a tremendous player. Aaron Rodgers is getting close to making a list like this and I'd maybe have Staubach on it, who was a really great player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After adjusting for era, Steve Young's 91 through 98 seasons are basically as good/dominant as you can possibly get.

 

Favre gets a bonus for sheer longevity.

 

In the rankings, you had 100 points to allot as you see fit. This is what I did

 

Manning 12
Montana 11
Marino 10
Unitas 10
Brady 10
-
Favre 8
Young 8
Elway 8
Baugh 3 - you'll notice I have Baugh/Graham ahead of the next 'tier,' but with less points. No, I can't really explain it.
Graham 3
-
Brees 5
Rodgers 4 - I figure Rodgers will end up with at least another point or two
Roethlisberger 2
Starr 2
Tarkenton 2
-
Aikman 1
Staubach 1

 

I didn't really 'rank' them if they had the same point total. I was just listing in tiers then giving points. I'm not definitively saying that Favre > Young/Elway or Marino > Unitas/Brady

Link to post
Share on other sites

He cheated tho.

 

As for Super Bowl losses knocking down a guy, I don't get that. Especially win that guy has 5 wins. 5-2 > 4-0. 4-3 > 4-0.

 

Of course, I think RINGZ is a dumb criteria anyway, but if you're going by SBs or playoff performance or whatever, making 7 Super Bowls is more impressive than making 6 is more impressive than 5 is more impressive etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny when you see lists like this they always seem to skew modern in the NFL, its the opposite in baseball where they nearly always skew older. I always say with baseball "it makes no sense that so many of the great players would play their careers so long ago and so few would play now." I think the same applies here. Are the best QBs actually better now, or in recent years, or are the conditions of the sport allowing QBs to seem better? For instance if before next year they changed the rules to allow defenders to make contact 10 yards down the field instead of 5 then every QBs stats would get worse. But they wouldn't actually be worse.

 

Sometimes when you see a list like this and see names like Baugh and Graham on them it does feel like the list maker is just paying lip service to the older days, rather than really considering them. Now Graham and Baugh probably are the 2 best pre Unitas QBs but there are other great players like Luckman and Layne.

 

On Lucas list there are basically 2 guys who really played the heart of their careers in the 70s and thats Staubach and Tarkenton and they are at the bottom of the list. Does it make sense that Manning, Brady, Favre, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger are all better than any and every QB who played during that time period? Now there is a chance that maybe this is just some golden age of QB play but I don't think thats the case. Maybe guys liek Namath, Dawson, Stabler deserve some more consideration.

 

Here are all the QBs who have been given a spot on one of the NFLs all decades teams:

 

iImmy Conzelman

John Driscoll

Earl Clark

Arnie Herber

Cecil Isbell

Sammy Baugh

Sid Luckman

Bob Waterfield

Otto Graham

Bobby Laybe

Norm Van Brocklin

Sonny Jurgenson

Johnny Unitas

Bart Starr

Roger Staubach

Terry Bradshaw

Kenny Stabler

Joe Montana

Dan Fouts

John Elway

Brett Favre

Tom Brady

Peyton Manning

 

Then you have a couple guys who like maybe slipped through cracks by splitting time evenly across 2 decades like say Marino. Then you have active guys like Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger. Then maybe another guy or two like Steve Young.

 

Furthermore the guys from the 20s or 30s Ive never even heard of. So, I really can't even comment on them. So maybe if we lop them off. That leaves us with 23 guys. Then maybe lop off Waterfield because the earlier all decades teams all had 3 guys on them rather than 2 like the modern ones and I feel like he was clearly the third guy behind Baugh and Luckman. That leaves 22 guys.

 

 

Sid Luckman

Otto Graham

Bobby Laybe

Norm Van Brocklin

Sonny Jurgenson

Johnny Unitas

Bart Starr

Roger Staubach

Terry Bradshaw

Kenny Stabler

Joe Montana

Dan Fouts

John Elway

Brett Favre

Tom Brady

Peyton Manning

Dan Marino

Steve Young

Ben Roethlisberger

Drew Brees

Aaron Rodgers

 

Those guys probably all warrant consideration for such a list.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unitas was, by far, the best of his era according to basically every and any source. He deserves to be high on any list of QBs.

 

I question whether that was really all that accurate though. Not that he was the best so much as that he was, by far, the best.

 

Did Unitas put up ungodly statistics? Not really. If you just look at the numbers, you'd think his contemporary Sonny Jurgensen was his equal and possibly his better. Championships? He had a solid 3, but contemporary Bart Starr had 5 and he played much better in those championship games and the playoffs in general (he still holds the record for highest career playoff QB Rating). Because he personally willed his team to greatness? Not really, his prime coincided with some pretty mediocre Colt teams.

 

I think Unitas is helped a lot by fanboys of the era growing into historians. He was literally on the field at the moment the NFL burst into the national consciousness. He was the first of a new crop of QBs, and probably the best, but when put into context I question just how far out ahead he really was and whether any of them are at all comparable to the great QBs of the today.

 

If I were forced to pick an older era QB for this list, I'd actually go with Otto Graham. He's got sick numbers for his era, the championships, MVPs, and the mystique as a great leader. The Browns went to 10 straight championship games during Graham's career (winning 7), and then promptly fell below .500 without him.

 

 

 

Of course, I think RINGZ is a dumb criteria anyway

 

In some ways, yes. But the goal is to win a championships. And Brady's managed to turn offenses often made of spare parts into contenders each and every year who believe they can win. That's his big advantage over Manning. His teams always knew they'd play good in the regular season, but I don't think he ever got them to buy in that they would win in the post-season.

 

That's something Montana was able to do as well, and that's why he's up there too. Of course, Montana had Rice for those last two Super Bowls, which cuts down the degree of difficulty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't always just go by stats or wins-losses. I mean Andrew Luck's stats this year weren't top of the league and his teams record wasnt very good but he is still a great player. I'd probably put him as the third best in the league.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What hurts Manning is that he really never played well in a Super Bowl. is that fair? Maybe not, but that is what happened. It's not necessarily any kind of actual flaw in the player or mean that he wasn't capable of playing well in a Super Bowl but the fact is he never did.

 

25 for 38, 247, 1 and 1

31 for 45, 333, 1 and 1

34 for 49, 280, 1 and 2

13 for 23, 141, 0 and 1

 

The first couple he played kinda just ok in. The one against Seattle was a disaster and the last one they didn't win cause of him. I mean 3 TDs and 5 picks in 4 games. It's just not great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't think it's fair to say that Manning couldn't get his teams to believe they could win in the playoffs. His early teams were usually overmatched in the playoffs and only got as far as they did due to him. Then his last 9 years he played in his teams played in 4 Super Bowls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The one against Seattle was a disaster

 

I always thought that Manning took too much blame for that Seattle loss. His receivers were just shut down in that game. He actually had the highest completion percentage (69%) that he has in any of his four Super Bowls. Unfortunately, all he could find all night were short passes. They got a respectable number of first downs (18 of them), but drives would eventually stall because they rarely got much more than those 10 yards with each fresh set of downs. Add in that he got absolutely no help from his defense (gave up points in 6 of Seattle's first 7 full drives), and there just wasn't much to be done.

 

I thought Manning did the best he could with an offense that was being completely over-matched that night. The 2nd and 3rd quarters of Super Bowl 51 were both reminiscent of Super Bowl 48. Both Brady and Manning were standing on their heads trying to make something happen.

 

Brady just managed to succeed. Through quite a bit of luck to be sure (that ball bounced up for grabs at least twice and fell into Patriot hands), the team kept working until they outworked the Falcons. The Broncos never did.

 

 

 

Oh come on. You're much too rational for an argument like this.

 

I've already mentioned on this thread that team psychology (or Manning's own psychology) doesn't always follow rationality.

 

Is it so hard to believe that Brady's teammates had more faith in him to pull off a miracle down by 25 than Manning's team did when they were in a 22 point hole at half?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those two games weren't remotely alike, beginning with the opponent.

 

And Manning has the most game-winning drives and 4th quarter comebacks in NFL history, so no, I don't think "belief" was something that was problem. Including the game earlier that year, or maybe it was the year prior where they trailed San Diego 24-0 at halftime and won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't think it's fair to say that Manning couldn't get his teams to believe they could win in the playoffs. His early teams were usually overmatched in the playoffs and only got as far as they did due to him. Then his last 9 years he played in his teams played in 4 Super Bowls.

 

Agreed, mostly.

 

Manning's defenses gave up 6 4th quarter leads in the playoffs, the most (or maybe tied with Warren Moon, I can't remember for sure) in NFL history.

 

2000 @ Dolphins - Gave up a TD pass from Jay Fielder with 40 seconds left. Manning drives team down in OT, Vanderjagt misses FG, Miami scores TD on next possession

 

2007 vs San Diego - Manning throws 4Q TD pass to take the lead, defense gives up lead to Billy Volek, in for injured Phil Rivers

 

2008 @ San Diego - Chargers kick tying field goal with 33 seconds to go. Colts never see the ball in OT

 

2009 vs New Orleans - Fun fact (not fun at all) the Colts had a 4th quarter lead in the Super Bowl. Obviously Manning isn't absolved of blame here. But of note: The defense forced 2 third downs in the entire second half of the Super Bowl.

 

2010 vs NY Jets - Colts scored on final 4 possessions, kicked a field goal with under a minute to go. Defense gives up Mark Sanchez game winning drive before regulation even ends.

 

2012 vs Baltimore - Mannning throws 4th quarter touchdown to take the lead. ****ing Jacoby Jones ensues.

 

 

I realize this is a meaningless stat in context, but Manning delivered a 4th quarter playoff lead to his defenses in 13 straight playoff games, an NFL record. The Colts/Broncos were amazingly only 8-5 in those games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Those two games weren't remotely alike, beginning with the opponent.

 

It was similar enough in the vein of two quarterbacks trying to will their team to be competitive any way they could even though the other team was overpowering. Manning had an even harder job thanks to that Seattle defense just having their receivers on lock down, apparently they'd figured out the hand signals for his audibles, and his own defense was playing like absolute crap. Oh, and his center started the game off by gifting Seattle a safety.

 

It's been somewhat lost that, in addition to that nearly 70% completion percentage, he also set a record for completed passes, but still had under 300 yards. Manning just couldn't find anyone open all night and had to settle for his check-down receiver time and again.

 

Manning didn't play great (he had one awful INT), but he was like the one player on the Broncos that looked like he was even trying out there. All the other guys on his team seemed to have given up by the end of the 1st quarter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is fundamental. Seattle got burned by trying to throw a pass on 3rd down in the Super Bowl, even though they had the best short yardage running back in the game.

 

It was 2nd down. And, with the amount of time left, they had to stop the clock on each of the next two downs in order to assure themselves 4 downs to put the ball in the end zone (or run two plays in only a few seconds and hope time didn't run out on them). Since they only had one timeout left, that meant either 2nd or 3rd down had to be a passing play.

 

Seattle passing on that down was totally justified and not at all being tricky. It was basic clock management and making sure the team had 4 downs to put the ball in the end zone.

 

They had 1 timeout and had 2nd and goal at the 1 yard line with 20 seconds left. No NFL analyst agreed with what you are suggesting.

 

 

 

 

Freeman is a good running back and since Atlanta was battling time, running the ball WAS the only choice.

 

You can keep repeating this, but it's not true. Once again, the chances of getting knocked back 20 yards in two plays is a lot lower than missing a 40 yard field goal.

 

You just can't get around that when you're trying to maximize your team's chances of winning.

 

Bull****e! The Patriots were getting to Matty Ice, and even when he hit Julio for that amazing catch, he was under pressure. Running the ball made perfect sense, because it would have taken time off of the clock, while trying to pass didn't make sense, because the Pats defense was getting pressure on him throughout the 2nd half. Everyone, except Brandon Marshall, on Inside the NFL (Showtime) thought that choosing to pass in that situation was totally wrong.

 

 

 

Green Bay put their faith in their kicker. There is absolutely no recutting that. He misses the 1st one and the game is over. Also, Green Bay had to pass the ball because time was not on their side.

 

Kicking a field goal on 4th and 13 and then later with :03 seconds left on the clock isn't putting faith in your kicker. They kicked the field goal because the odds were strongly against them moving the ball forward any further. If there's any faith to be found, it's that they didn't punt on 4th and 13 and facing a 56 yard field goal. Now if the choice were kicking it on 4th and 1 from the same distance instead of putting the ball in Rodgers's hand, that would have been a case of having faith in your kicker.

 

I'm willing to bet if that had been the case, they would have gone for it on 4th down.

 

The Packers are screwed if Crosby doesn't hit that 56 yard field goal. The Cowboys would have easily put themselves in field goal range, with a 1st down play with that field position.

 

 

Man, I hate the forum code. You can't quote anything right.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
They had 1 timeout and had 2nd and goal at the 1 yard line with 20 seconds left. No NFL analyst agreed with what you are suggesting.

 

 

Lots of analysts figured it out the next day after Cris Collinsworth made an idiot out of himself during the game and misinformed the whole country.

 

Go ahead and tell me how my analysis is wrong.

 

 

 

Bull****e! The Patriots were getting to Matty Ice, and even when he hit Julio for that amazing catch, he was under pressure. Running the ball made perfect sense, because it would have taken time off of the clock

 

Oh my gosh, the clock, the clock.

 

The clock was in a place where it didn't really matter. There was plenty of time for one more drive for Brady if Atlanta hadn't scored and if they had scored an extra 35 or so seconds or saved timeout wouldn't have improved the Patriots odds all that much anyway.

 

No matter how you look at it, ultra-conservative clock management was a low priority in that situation.

 

 

 

Everyone, except Brandon Marshall, on Inside the NFL (Showtime) thought that choosing to pass in that situation was totally wrong.

 

 

Getting a lot of use out of this one today.

 

 

 

The Packers are screwed if Crosby doesn't hit that 56 yard field goal. The Cowboys would have easily put themselves in field goal range, with a 1st down play with that field position.

 

As I said, the only faith shown was by not punting. It's totally different keeping your kicker off the field when he's your only shot to put points on the board and keeping the ball in your QB's hands when you've got an opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...