Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    Ive seen this so many times, where people are saying Den is going all in this year and mortgaging future success.

     

    I simply don't see it. Here's why:

    Of their big contracts: Talib's deal is actually just a 3 year deal, and could potentially only be 1...not the 6 years we initially thought. Ware deal I am not a huge fan of, but also a three year deal. He may still have 2-3 good years left in him...so not too far fetched. And TJ Ward should be entering his prime...candidate to actually live through the 4 year deal.

    There upcoming big contracts are D Thomas and V Miller...However, with the expected cap jump by 2015, and the Manning retirement and Welker expiration...they should be fine with those contracts.

     

    Last but not least, they have not, to my knowledge, traded away their draft picks. This is the most important in my opinion. Trading away draft picks or overpaying for mediocre plays is mortaging the future, not paying high level players and keeping picks. You could argue the pats have done more to mortgage their future in recent history by trading picks for Chad Ochocinco, Derrick Burgess, Talib, Haynesworth, etc.

     

    Honestly, I think Elways has done a good job as a GM. Their drafts have been fairly decent and he has been a closer when it comes to FAs...I think his biggest mistake is his choice in coach.

     

    I havent seen the full details of the Ware and Ward contracts...but I can be swayed to believe others. However, at the moment, as long as they draft decently and can find a Manning replacement, I don't think theyve actually mortgaged their future.

    An example of mortgaging your future is the Redskins in the 2000's

     

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you in Denver right now smokin' DA CHRONIC? Once Horseface retires they are toast as are we when TB goes...I mean, this is amazing to me that you don't see that....and that you don't see the immediate impact both Kapernick and Wilson had on their respective teams...sure it's the surrounding cast, but you put a stiff QB on Denver and they win nada.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Defense wins championships.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you in Denver right now smokin' DA CHRONIC? Once Horseface retires they are toast as are we when TB goes...I mean, this is amazing to me that you don't see that....and that you don't see the immediate impact both Kapernick and Wilson had on their respective teams...sure it's the surrounding cast, but you put a stiff QB on Denver and they win nada.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do see the immediate impact of Wilson and Kapernick...but if you're telling me they're the sole reason as to why those team are so good, then you're smoking the bud. Neither of those QBs lit up the world. You don't need a Rodgers, Brees, Brady, P. Manning level type QB to win it all. If you have a decent roster, you can win with a Flacco, Manning, Kaepernick, Wilson type.

    Don't be foolish, you don't need a great QB to win it all. If you have a good QB, you can win it all if the supporting cast is solid.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to Getzo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Defense wins championships.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Defense and clutch QB play

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Getzo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Defense wins championships.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Defense and clutch QB play

    [/QUOTE]

    You can find that out of Qb's like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johson, and Eli.  Starts with the D IMO.  Then a smart QB with a great running game.  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you in Denver right now smokin' DA CHRONIC? Once Horseface retires they are toast as are we when TB goes...I mean, this is amazing to me that you don't see that....and that you don't see the immediate impact both Kapernick and Wilson had on their respective teams...sure it's the surrounding cast, but you put a stiff QB on Denver and they win nada.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do see the immediate impact of Wilson and Kapernick...but if you're telling me they're the sole reason as to why those team are so good, then you're smoking the bud. Neither of those QBs lit up the world. You don't need a Rodgers, Brees, Brady, P. Manning level type QB to win it all. If you have a decent roster, you can win with a Flacco, Manning, Kaepernick, Wilson type.

    Don't be foolish, you don't need a great QB to win it all. If you have a good QB, you can win it all if the supporting cast is solid.

    [/QUOTE]

    If the other team has a great QB in the SB, you need one too.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you in Denver right now smokin' DA CHRONIC? Once Horseface retires they are toast as are we when TB goes...I mean, this is amazing to me that you don't see that....and that you don't see the immediate impact both Kapernick and Wilson had on their respective teams...sure it's the surrounding cast, but you put a stiff QB on Denver and they win nada.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do see the immediate impact of Wilson and Kapernick...but if you're telling me they're the sole reason as to why those team are so good, then you're smoking the bud. Neither of those QBs lit up the world. You don't need a Rodgers, Brees, Brady, P. Manning level type QB to win it all. If you have a decent roster, you can win with a Flacco, Manning, Kaepernick, Wilson type.

    Don't be foolish, you don't need a great QB to win it all. If you have a good QB, you can win it all if the supporting cast is solid.

    [/QUOTE]

    If the other team has a great QB in the SB, you need one too.

    [/QUOTE]

    Is Eli a great QB then?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    Kapernick and Wilson arent great QB's, theyre good quarterbacks with great defenses.

    Elway has Peyton Manning and small window of oppurtunity. He's going for it. Why not?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you in Denver right now smokin' DA CHRONIC? Once Horseface retires they are toast as are we when TB goes...I mean, this is amazing to me that you don't see that....and that you don't see the immediate impact both Kapernick and Wilson had on their respective teams...sure it's the surrounding cast, but you put a stiff QB on Denver and they win nada.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do see the immediate impact of Wilson and Kapernick...but if you're telling me they're the sole reason as to why those team are so good, then you're smoking the bud. Neither of those QBs lit up the world. You don't need a Rodgers, Brees, Brady, P. Manning level type QB to win it all. If you have a decent roster, you can win with a Flacco, Manning, Kaepernick, Wilson type.

    Don't be foolish, you don't need a great QB to win it all. If you have a good QB, you can win it all if the supporting cast is solid.

    [/QUOTE]

    If the other team has a great QB in the SB, you need one too.

    [/QUOTE]

    Is Eli a great QB then?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, actually, when his line gives him time he can get it done...he kicked our butt that's for sure...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you in Denver right now smokin' DA CHRONIC? Once Horseface retires they are toast as are we when TB goes...I mean, this is amazing to me that you don't see that....and that you don't see the immediate impact both Kapernick and Wilson had on their respective teams...sure it's the surrounding cast, but you put a stiff QB on Denver and they win nada.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do see the immediate impact of Wilson and Kapernick...but if you're telling me they're the sole reason as to why those team are so good, then you're smoking the bud. Neither of those QBs lit up the world. You don't need a Rodgers, Brees, Brady, P. Manning level type QB to win it all. If you have a decent roster, you can win with a Flacco, Manning, Kaepernick, Wilson type.

    Don't be foolish, you don't need a great QB to win it all. If you have a good QB, you can win it all if the supporting cast is solid.

    [/QUOTE]

    If the other team has a great QB in the SB, you need one too.

    [/QUOTE]

    Is Eli a great QB then?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, actually, when his line gives him time he can get it done...he kicked our butt that's for sure...

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly my point. You pretty much stated that he needs a good line to be great. Much like Flacco after the Ravens realligned their offensive line. Neither impress without great line play.

    Great QBs like Brady, Manning, and Rodgers can compensate to an extent with a mediocre line...Manning/Brady more presnap, while Rodgers has great physical tools...Could be a disagreement of what is considered a great QB...but those 3 are the only great QBs I currently see.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Kapernick and Wilson arent great QB's, theyre good quarterbacks with great defenses.

    Elway has Peyton Manning and small window of oppurtunity. He's going for it. Why not?

    [/QUOTE]

    Never said he wasn't going for it...just arguing that he's not selling the long term future of the team for the next 1-2 years.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to Getzo's comment:

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

     



    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

     

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     
    Defense wins championships.  



    Well Defenses can lose championships, we witnessed that... twice!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    You could be right about Denver, but I think the more compelling argument is: what if Denver is mortgaging their future to make a championship push? Would you, if you were a Denver fan, be ok with that? 

    Becasuse I would. There is this mythology amongst Pats fans about "sustained excellence" and a mockery of franchises like the Steelers and the Ravens and the Saints. It's not so bad being a Steeler or Ravens or Saints fan. They've won championships more recently than us. What stinks is being a Browns, or Bills, or Cowboys fan. 

    But as a fan, I don't mind my team stretching itself to the max when it knows it has a limited window. Not every fan in here likes that approach but it's at least as legit as "sustained excellence," which by the way is heavily dependent on playing in one of the worst divisions in football the last decade. 

    That said, what Belichick is doing now, not mortgaging the future but making aggressive investments, definitely works for me. All I want to see towards the end of Brady's career (especially given the level of play of the top teams in the playoffs) is a sense of urgency. You can have some urgency without mortgaging the future. 

    I'm seeing that now and I couldn't be happier. BB isn't abandoning his system but he's definitely tweaking and adjusting because he doesn't like losing in humiliating fashion. I'm right there with him.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you in Denver right now smokin' DA CHRONIC? Once Horseface retires they are toast as are we when TB goes...I mean, this is amazing to me that you don't see that....and that you don't see the immediate impact both Kapernick and Wilson had on their respective teams...sure it's the surrounding cast, but you put a stiff QB on Denver and they win nada.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do see the immediate impact of Wilson and Kapernick...but if you're telling me they're the sole reason as to why those team are so good, then you're smoking the bud. Neither of those QBs lit up the world. You don't need a Rodgers, Brees, Brady, P. Manning level type QB to win it all. If you have a decent roster, you can win with a Flacco, Manning, Kaepernick, Wilson type.

    Don't be foolish, you don't need a great QB to win it all. If you have a good QB, you can win it all if the supporting cast is solid.

    [/QUOTE]

    If the other team has a great QB in the SB, you need one too.

    [/QUOTE]


    No you don't. See Brady vs Eli!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    If rumors are true, there was a lot more interest in back up QB Osweiller than there was for Mallett ( and I am a big Mallett fan if you recall my summer camp posts)

    Denver hasn't budged on him, thinking he does have a pretty good future

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    I must confess that I don't really know the details of Denver's cap situation now and going forward.  It appears they've thrown a lot of money arround to rebuild their D and augment their O.  What the ramifications of all of this might be I simply don't know nor do I know how all of that will translate on the field.

    Quite frankly, I don't really see that the Pats having done the same thing.  Revis is the only one of their signings that got anything close to big money and the contract there appears to be beneficial to both sides. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    The issue is not just salary but dead money - not sure what the exact details of aqib's deal are, but part of what makes it work for Denver is the bonus money being spread over five years - so if they cut him after three they save the back loaded salary but get hit with two years of bonus proration in dead money. Same with when Payton retires (and when TB retires for the Pats.

    It is also why the Pats had no problem adding the second year to Revis - they have a huge projected hit from Aaron this year that is eating a hole in their cap - by adding the bogus second year to the contract they postpone a large portion (half the bonus) of the first year to next years cap.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They don't really have a future. Everything is tied to the QB. When his time is up, they're starting over, just like the Pats will be, whenever that is. It doesn't matter what the team looks like then, they won't be SB contenders at that point. There's no Steve Young on the roster waiting his turn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree to an extent...yes, it is tied to the QB...but it does matter what the team looks like. Seahawks won the Super Bowl in Russell Wilsons second season because they already had a great roster prepared. You could say the same about what the Pats were molding when Brady got there. Same with Kaepernick.

    Your roster does matter, regardless of the QB

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I might agree if they were building a team for the future, and bringing in a young QB to groom. But, they're not. They're giving $30 mil to Demarcus Ware and a backloaded six year deal to Talib, not the sign of a team looking at anything other than the next two or three years. By the way, there's nothing wrong with that.

    Every team has a window, Seattle has a window while the QB and their two DB stars are on their rookie contracts, then their rules change too. They'll adapt, good teams adapt. 

    But to pretend Denver won't miss a beat when Peyton hangs up the cleats, not happening. Doesn't mean they'll suck, but they'll be what they were before he got there, average.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    And another thing, the whole "defense wins championships" thing. Sure, every twenty years or so years some defense first team with a mediocre QB wins a SB. But those teams are the exception not the rule, and history tells us they have a short run. The great '85 Bears won once. Ditto the turn of the century Ravens and the Bucs.  

    Teams with great QB play are in the hunt every year. I don't put Wilson or Kaepernick in the mediocre camp, I think they're pretty good young QBs with a chance to be really good if not elite. 

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And another thing, the whole "defense wins championships" thing. Sure, every twenty years or so years some defense first team and a mediocre QB wins a SB. But those teams are the exception not the rule, and history tells us they have a short run. The great '85 Bears won once. Ditto the turn of the century Ravens and the Bucs.  

    Teams with great QB play are in the hunt every year. I don't put Wilson or Kaepernick in the mediocre camp, I think they're pretty good young QBs with a chance to be really good if not elite. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What was TB QB rating the 3 SB years...

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And another thing, the whole "defense wins championships" thing. Sure, every twenty years or so years some defense first team and a mediocre QB wins a SB. But those teams are the exception not the rule, and history tells us they have a short run. The great '85 Bears won once. Ditto the turn of the century Ravens and the Bucs.  

    Teams with great QB play are in the hunt every year. I don't put Wilson or Kaepernick in the mediocre camp, I think they're pretty good young QBs with a chance to be really good if not elite. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What was TB QB rating the 3 SB years...

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't know off hand, not sure how it's relevant. Unless you're saying that he's a mediocre Trent Dilfer type QB and/or the Pats defense (the one that got shredded by the likes of Jake Delhomme) was in the Ravens/Bears/Seahawks class? I wouldn't agree with either premise.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And another thing, the whole "defense wins championships" thing. Sure, every twenty years or so years some defense first team and a mediocre QB wins a SB. But those teams are the exception not the rule, and history tells us they have a short run. The great '85 Bears won once. Ditto the turn of the century Ravens and the Bucs.  

    Teams with great QB play are in the hunt every year. I don't put Wilson or Kaepernick in the mediocre camp, I think they're pretty good young QBs with a chance to be really good if not elite. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What was TB QB rating the 3 SB years...

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't know off hand, not sure how it's relevant. Unless you're saying that he's a mediocre Trent Dilfer type QB and/or the Pats defense (the one that got shredded by the likes of Jake Delhomme) was in the Ravens/Bears/Seahawks class? I wouldn't agree with either premise.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not at all Muz...but early on TB ratings were average and was certainly the case in 01. I have been clear that he is the best at his craft but this obstinate denial by some that the D don't matter is just stubbornness and a refusal to admit to it.

    The vast majority of SB winners have had above average D's with many right at the top. I think you would need to go back to 06 to see where a below average D won a SB as the O covered for them. The Pats have been unable to do this. Before that you would need to go back to the late 90's with Denver to see an O saving a below average D.

     

Share