RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

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

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    Peyton Manning won a SB in the Pouring Rain. I think one of only a few outside SB's ever played.
    Posted by patsfan76



    Well, it's a good thing he handed it off to Addai and Rhodes 40 times because he didn't really do anything well in that game himself.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcheNot. Show AcheNot's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    Food for thought Joe Montana and his AMAZING SB performance! The 1st SB had a minus 27 degree wind chill. The niners defense stomped the Benagals for most of the game. The game was very similar to our 1st SB where both QB's were "game managers". Joe had around 160 passing yard with a td...sound familiar? Roger Craig and Wendell Taylor( running backs ) touched the ball 39 times for 230 yards and Craig scored 3 tds in the niners 2nd SB. Roger Craig and Tom Rathman( running backs ) touched the ball over 30 times for 200 yards in the 3rd SB. Roger Craig and Tom Rathman (running backs ) touched the ball over 40 times for 190 yards and 3 tds in the 4rth SB In the niners last 3 SB's the running backs touched the ball 110 times for 620 yards and 6 TD's WOW. Montana and the coaching staff used the running backs as the focal point of the offense and it lead to Montana throwing 11 tds to zero interceptions . If you run the ball, you help your QB. We don't.
    Posted by TrueChamp


    Youre confusing the AFC championship game that year which took place in Cincinnati (in incredibly frigid weather) with the Super Bowl, which as has already been pointed out, was held in Michigan inside a dome
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    Agree to disagree, Dogg. They can be ranked 1st in every category for all I care, didn't think they were a Super Bowl worthy team that season. Their qb was Rex Grossman for crying out loud! Long time no see, where you been? You should probably take your rightful spot back from Jints, he's been keeping your seat warm for you.
    Posted by CaptainZdeno33

    Z - you are entitled to your opinion, but the facts tell a different story.  Did you know that the Bears had the second highest scoring offense in the NFL that year?  And they had a dominant defense. 

    Trent Dilfer won a SB with a dominant defense.  So did Brad Johnson.  So did Roethlisberger (22 Passer Rating for a winning QB - are you serious?)

    The weather in that game was likely the worst weather in SB History particularly for a QB.  Snow and cold are completely different than driving rain.  Look I get it that pats fans aren't quick to give Manning props.  So be it, but an unbiased, educated perspective can see that his play was very good that game given the conditions and the opponent. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB? : Well, it's a good thing he handed it off to Addai and Rhodes 40 times because he didn't really do anything well in that game himself.
    Posted by BassFishing

    Funny how you are complaining about a prolific QB managing a game to near perfection given the weather conditions.  Its hilarious.  We all know he ran that offense, and yet you don't give him credit for knowing the ground game was a better option given the conditions. 

    You of all people should be crediting Manning in that game given your penchant for bitching about Brady excess throwing.   

    The biased on this site (you at the top of the list) constantly bash Manning as a stat monger, but don't give him credit for effectively dialing things back when the situation/conditions call for it.  What a joke. Got hypocrisy.  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    Are you being sarcastic? It was at the Ponitac Silverdome, so unless Montana was locked out in the cold right before kick off, I don't get your point. I think the reason why his stats didn't look fantastic early in his career is for a few reasons, but mainly one and that reason is Jerry Rice. It was until 1984 where their offense really becme balanced with Roger Craig replacing Wendell Tyler full time (scaling back Tyler a bit helped the offense) and Walsh bringing in guys like John Frank, Mike Wilson, etc. WR Solomon and Cooper at TE along with Dwight Clark were already there. Montana had good weaponry then, stability, certainly more so than Brady. As much as we love Brown, Branch, Givens, Patten, etc, Brady's weapons aren't quite as good as what Montana had.   He also had years and years with his weapons while Brady did not.     Brown was the only mainstay type.  Branch and Givens were new, Patten a scrapheap WR pick up. SF was a very efficient offense from 1981-1983 (this mirrors Brady's 2001-2004), but they dind't really have the ability to overwhelm teams until 1984. Obviously, Rice coming on board in 1985 only enhanced Montana's stats.  Add in John Taylor and Brent Jones later, and their weaponry only improved. I think this only strengthens Brady's case against MOntana, which is the point I think you're going for.  Each have mirror images type careers, but Montana had far more stability as compared to Brady.  Cap era. This is where the dopes who say Montana had great SB games lose.  Montana had an easier platform to play due to SF easily keeping any player they wanted, or upgrading without a cap. The only thing Brady is missing now is performing like Montana did late in his career in SBs. PS In SB 19, it was foggy, rainy and damp at Stanford Stadium, so I don't really buy into Montana was only a warm weather QB. He was fine in any conditions mostly due to the West Coast offense providing a QB to keep in rhythm and unload the ball quickly. This is more so what Brady needs to get back to which is the Weis Hybrid West Coast Offense that WE USED TO RUN. I know you agree with this, I am just adding this in there. There are only two QB greats who must have good weather to be themselves: Dan Marino and Peyton Manning.
    Posted by BassFishing



    Yeah, that makes sense. I was watching a video of that SB, and the announcer was talking about how frigid it was. Even though it was in the dome it looked cold on the field, I wonder what the temp was in the silver dome that day?

    Anyway that had almost nothing to do with the post, and really took away from what I was saying which was that Montana's SB victories(after the 1st one) was due to HEAVY use of the run game and the RB's as receivers. The running backs accounted for 6 tds on 110 touches for over 600 yards in 3 SB victories. Montana's offense was predictated on balance as ours used to be when we won 3 SB's in 4 years.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    I'd be one of the first to give Manning props, Dogg. I always do. I'm not taking anything away from Indy for who they beat in the SB, they did beat NE a couple weeks earlier, right?

    The Bears of that year are like that Titans team a few years ago that won 13/14 games, didn't think they were as good as they did in the regular season and the Steelers proved that come playoff time. Fortunately for the Bears, noone in the NFC was all that good that year. Their division was pretty poor. The Bears were the only team that won more than 10 games in the NFC that year I believe.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    Could I say the same thing about Carolina in 03? - Delhomme had an 80 passer rating for the year-19 tds and 16 ints.  the 07 Giants were only 9-7.  No one gave Eli any credit before then.  The 2011 giants were 9-7.  Does that matter?

    We can nitpick just about anything if we wish.  
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    Could I say the same thing about Carolina in 03? - Delhomme had an 80 passer rating for the year-19 tds and 16 ints.  the 07 Giants were only 9-7.  No one gave Eli any credit before then.  The 2011 giants were 9-7.  Does that matter? We can nitpick just about anything if we wish.  
    Posted by UD6


    The difference between the teams you just mentioned and the Bears that year is that their QB's played well at the end of the year.  Rex Grossman was hot garbage for the entire second half of the regular season and in the playoffs.  Delhomme and Eli were lights out in the postseason in all 3 of those years.  The Bears defense from that year was not the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs and in any event in both of those cases they did not turn it over 5 times like the Bears did in that SB.  I'm not really sure what is so controversial here.  The Colts won the SB that year.  The Bears had a crappy QB.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    pcm - 

    go back and look at the game logs for these qb's.  you might be surprised. 

    Eli - 2007 - in 4 of his last 6 games his highest passer rating was 63.  in 2011, games 14 and 15 he had passer ratings of 45 and 61.  That's not exactly playing well at the end of the year. 

    Delhomme was a better than Manning finishing the year with ratings of 82, 105, and 81 to finish the year, but

    None finished better than Grossman who finished with ratings of 114, 104, 80. 

    So its not so much that I find the comments controversial.  I just find them inaccurate.  And while we may argue who had the best defense, we can't argue that the bears had a top defense in 2006.  they were 3rd in pts against, 5th in yds against.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    Dude, go look at their schedule that season. The only teams they played that had more than 10 wins, NE & Indy, they lost to. Their opponents had a .447 winning percentage. They played 12-4 NE, 10-6 NYJ and 9-7 Seattle. Thats it for winning teams that regular season. I realize you only play who you're given but come on, they were a middle of the road team most seasons.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    So you are giving the 9-7 teams more credit because they had tougher schedules?  Gotcha.  Remember, the 3rd Bears loss was the last of the season when they sat starters. 

    So when, as you say, a team plays lesser talent and ends up with the #2 point differential  (they were #1 until that last game), doesn't that mean that they pretty much handled their business as they should have given their "lesser"  competition?   

    Again you are nitpicking so as not to give full credit where it is due. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    pcm -  go back and look at the game logs for these qb's.  you might be surprised.  Eli - 2007 - in 4 of his last 6 games his highest passer rating was 63.  in 2011, games 14 and 15 he had passer ratings of 45 and 61.  That's not exactly playing well at the end of the year.  Delhomme was a better than Manning finishing the year with ratings of 82, 105, and 81 to finish the year, but None finished better than Grossman who finished with ratings of 114, 104, 80.  So its not so much that I find the comments controversial.  I just find them inaccurate.  And while we may argue who had the best defense, we can't argue that the bears had a top defense in 2006.  they were 3rd in pts against, 5th in yds against.
    Posted by UD6


    You conveniently left out Grossman finishing the season with a 0 or that the game before the one's you mentioned he had a 1.3 and before that a 23.7.  Of course that is a moot point since I said to look at how they played in the postseason.  Grossman was awful whereas Delhomme, and Eli put up 100+ passer ratings in each of the postseasons in question with a combined TD/INT ratio of 21/3.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    Oh and they lost by 4 pts @NE who had a 12-4 record.  Lets not suggest they didn't compete.  The pats lost to Miami that year 21-0.  The Bears lost to Miami by 18.  Should we make anything of that?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    "Again you are nitpicking so as not to give full credit where it is due."

    Whatever Dogg, I'm done with this subject. I don't know how many times I've told you I give the Colts 100% credit for winning the Super Bowl that year (one of the few who does). I don't understand why you care if the team they beat wasn't that good, what does it matter?

    And to answer your question, I don't think Carolina was anything special either, but, they beat some much better teams on their road to the Super Bowl than Chicago did.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?

    In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB?:
    "Again you are nitpicking so as not to give full credit where it is due." Whatever Dogg, I'm done with this subject. I don't know how many times I've told you I give the Colts 100% credit for winning the Super Bowl that year (one of the few who does). I don't understand why you care if the team they beat wasn't that good, what does it matter? And to answer your question, I don't think Carolina was anything special either, but, they beat some much better teams on their road to the Super Bowl than Chicago did.
    Posted by CaptainZdeno33

    Capyz - you say you give full credit while pointing out the limitations of their opponent.  Its a backhanded compliment at best and certainly is not 100% credit as you say.  If it was, you wouldn't be arguing the point.
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share