Screw the NFL!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
There goes Favre again... pick at the end of the game F.T.L.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
1. Manning 2. Brees 3. Brady 4. Rivers 5. Rodgers

Seriously, look at Rivers' stats and watch him play.
Click to expand...

This is my rankings, too. Brees and Brady are arguable...I could swap their rankings. And I don't think Rivers is a very large step down from Brees/Brady. I consider the first four to be the "top tier" and Rodgers to be the best of the next tier.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Cutler needs to..... go back to Denver?
Click to expand...

Cutler needs a good pass-blocking line. He can't function under constant pressure. Obviously, every quarterback sees a major decline in performance if constantly hurried, but Cutler gets especially flustered.
 
MickZagger said:
I'm not. Rivers has been overrated from the get-go. The guy makes so many mistakes that shouldn't happen that I just don't rate him very highly at all. His teams under-achieving is just more proof.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Career 117 TD's to 49 picks, a 105.1 QB rating the past 2 and a half years, and a career overall 96.7 QB rating. He's averaged the most YPC the past 3 years, as well.

Your hatred for the guy surely is blinding you from common sense. Rivers' is by far a top 4 QB in the game, along with Brady, Manning, and Brees.
 
As for my opinion..

Manning, Brady, Brees (the past 2 years, Rivers has been better than him, IMO), Rivers, Rodgers is my top 5. If I'm picking a team though in their prime, I'm taking Brady over Manning.

I actually don't think Brees is any better than Rivers, and I have no problem with SD letting him go. Brees has put up stellar numbers in NO and won a championship, but he's been nothing special this year so far.
 
Sir Psycho Sexy said:
As for my opinion..

Manning, Brady, Brees (the past 2 years, Rivers has been better than him, IMO), Rivers, Rodgers is my top 5. If I'm picking a team though in their prime, I'm taking Brady over Manning.

I actually don't think Brees is any better than Rivers, and I have no problem with SD letting him go. Brees has put up stellar numbers in NO and won a championship, but he's been nothing special this year so far.
Click to expand...

He's spending too much time doing Entourage and a bunch of commercials.
 
The year is still young. I haven't really watched much of Rivers this year, but when I have he's looked like shit. I've seen the guy crumble too many times in big games for me to put him in the top tier.


Minstrel, you remember our long drawn out arguments about whether Tom Brady is a sure fire HOF'er or not back on during the bbb.net days. I always argued that after his 3rd superbowl it wasn't even a question. In fact, I thought and still think to this day he's a better overall QB than Montana. Both were money at big moments. But, Brady relied on Branch, Troy Brown and David Patten. Montana had guys like Rice, John Taylor and Brent Jones.
 
MickZagger said:
Minstrel, you remember our long drawn out arguments about whether Tom Brady is a sure fire HOF'er or not back on during the bbb.net days. I always argued that after his 3rd superbowl it wasn't even a question. In fact, I thought and still think to this day he's a better overall QB than Montana. Both were money at big moments. But, Brady relied on Branch, Troy Brown and David Patten. Montana had guys like Rice, John Taylor and Brent Jones.
Click to expand...

I don't think Brady is the best quarterback currently, let alone arguably the best ever (as he would be to be ahead of Montana, or in that echelon with Montana and Unitas). Montana had better talent around him, but he also played in a less parity-driven league where the other contenders were also stacked. What prevents Brady's Patriots from being so stacked (the salary cap rules) also restrict every other team in the league. From a relative perspective, Brady's Patriots were the most talented team in football from about 2002-2007 or so. It's not a question of how objectively talented your teammates are...it's a question of how your team's talent stacks up against the rest of the league.

I do now think that he's a surefire Hall of Famer (on merit, not just on "won three championships" which I've never viewed as a good measure of an individual player in team sports). I don't think he's better than Peyton Manning, though. Manning is the one, IMO, who can compete with Montana and Unitas (and Marino, IMO) for greatest quarterback ever. Brady is more like a top-10/top-15 of all-time, to me.
 
Minstrel said:
From a relative perspective, Brady's Patriots were the most talented team in football from about 2002-2007 or so.
Click to expand...

Yes, definitely. Look at all the Hall of Famers Brady had alongside him on offense. He always had elite running backs and wide recievers.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, it was actually the complete opposite.
 
Wasn't Deion Branch the Super Bowl MVP?
 
44Thrilla said:
Yes, definitely. Look at all the Hall of Famers Brady had alongside him on offense. He always had elite running backs and wide recievers.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, it was actually the complete opposite.
Click to expand...

No team over the past decade has been a group of Hall of Famers. The Patriots over that period of time had the most total talent, even if it wasn't concentrated into singularly amazing players outside of Brady and the occasional player like Moss. Pioli and Belichick built an incredibly balanced team with talent spread across the entire roster.
 
Minstrel said:
No team over the past decade has been a group of Hall of Famers. The Patriots over that period of time had the most total talent, even if it wasn't concentrated into singularly amazing players outside of Brady and the occasional player like Moss. Pioli and Belichick built an incredibly balanced team with talent spread across the entire roster.
Click to expand...

Defensively, I agree. That offense was basically Brady and a bunch of scrubs. Funny you even mentioned Moss, when you gave a time frame of 02-07 and Moss was only on the team for 1 of those years.
 
44Thrilla said:
Is Rodgers really better than Rivers? He had a good year last year, but anybody that takes 50 sacks can't blame it on the offensive line. Great QBs get that ball out of there quick. Rodgers also has no track record. Two pretty solid years, but Rivers has better stats and has won multiple playoff games.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair assessment of Rodgers. He's less proven in the sense that he's been a starter for only 3 years, but has been very, very effective every year. In his defense, it's not his fault he couldn't falter Favre. Also, his team is far less talented on offense, which should be accounted for. Donald Driver is a viagra short of decrepitude , Jennings is unreliable as a #1, and that o-line has been atrocious the past few years. I like Finley though.

Meanwhile, Rivers' first starter year was with LT at his peak, above average receivers, a really good offensive line, and far and away the best TE in the game. I'm having a hard time believing that if you switched Rodgers and Rivers, Rodgers wouldn't have much better numbers than he already does.

GB as a whole is overrated tbh.

1. Manning (probably going to end up as a top 2 QB or GOAT), and I don't think anyone here is close to him.

2. Brady

3. Brees (meh year so far, by his standards)

4. Rodgers

5. Rivers

for me. I do think that Rivers and Rodgers are close though.
 
44Thrilla said:
Defensively, I agree. That offense was basically Brady and a bunch of scrubs.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that at all. They had a very good offensive line and Branch and Givens, while nothing close to Hall of Famers, were good receivers.

Funny you even mentioned Moss, when you gave a time frame of 02-07 and Moss was only on the team for 1 of those years.
Click to expand...

I mentioned him in passing, qualifying him with "occasional" to highlight that he wasn't a key, because I was aware he didn't overlap that period much. He was there, though, for probably their single best team. That they lost the Super Bowl is a massive fluke of NFL history.
 
Minstrel said:
I don't agree with that at all. They had a very good offensive line and Branch and Givens, while nothing close to Hall of Famers, were good receivers.
Click to expand...
There was at least 10-15 teams every year in that time period that were more talented on offense (besides QB, obviously). It's easy to say "hey, these guys weren't that bad!" but in comparison to what other teams had, especially other "elite" QBs, they were very inadequate. Do you think Brady would have traded Antowain Smith, Deion Branch, David Givens and Christian Fauria for Edgerin James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark? There's no comparison.
 
44Thrilla said:
There was at least 10-15 teams every year in that time period that were more talented on offense (besides QB, obviously). It's easy to say "hey, these guys weren't that bad!" but in comparison to what other teams had, especially other "elite" QBs, they were very inadequate. Do you think Brady would have traded Antowain Smith, Deion Branch, David Givens and Christian Fauria for Edgerin James, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark? There's no comparison.
Click to expand...

But I was talking about the entire team talent. Having merely good players at positions is fine when you're good to very good all around. Would he have traded just those players for other, better ones? Sure. Would he have traded those players and his offensive line and defense for the Colts' receivers, running backs, offensive line and defense? I doubt it.

How many teams do you think Brady would have exchanged his entire roster (minus himself) for the other team's entire roster (minus their quarterback) over the time span I mentioned? Personally, I don't think any.

That other teams had better players at various positions is obvious. That was true of Montana's 49ers, too. What I said was that those Patriots had the most talented overall team in their era of the NFL, which is what matters for winning. They didn't need to beat Montana's 49ers, a team constructed under different rules, so it's not really relevant that Montana had better talent.
 
Minstrel said:
But I was talking about the entire team talent. Having merely good players at positions is fine when you're good to very good all around. Would he have traded just those players for other, better ones? Sure. Would he have traded those players and his offensive line and defense for the Colts' receivers, running backs, offensive line and defense? I doubt it.

How many teams do you think Brady would have exchanged his entire roster (minus himself) for the other team's entire roster (minus their quarterback) over the time span I mentioned? Personally, I don't think any.

That other teams had better players at various positions is obvious. That was true of Montana's 49ers, too. What I said was that those Patriots had the most talented overall team in their era of the NFL, which is what matters for winning. They didn't need to beat Montana's 49ers, a team constructed under different rules, so it's not really relevant that Montana had better talent.
Click to expand...
I've already agreed with you on the defense. I'm talking offense, exclusively. And I don't think they had a top 10 offense, in terms of talent. I think the offensive line was overrated. They have never been good at run blocking, and Brady has great pocket presence, so he rarely takes a sack, even when he is given very little time. Also, on the defense of that era, they didn't perform that well in a lot of the big playoff games. Brady really worked wonders with the crew he had, and put up some big point totals when it was needed.
 
Just for those Bills (most likely), 49ers, Panthers, and Browns fans salivating over Andrew Luck:

[video=youtube;N5STc2_bM7k]
 
Last edited:
44Thrilla said:
I've already agreed with you on the defense. I'm talking offense, exclusively.
Click to expand...

You appeared to disagree with my original premise that those New England teams had the most talented overall teams, by which I'm referring to the entire roster.

If we agree on that, cool. I agree that their offense, alone, was not the most talented in the NFL. That was never my contention.

As for the offensive line, the Patriots seemed to me (though I haven't researched this, so I may be wrong) to run the ball pretty effectively through that era, despite pretty uninspiring running backs. I agree that Brady has excellent pocket presence and poise, but I always felt he had a lot of time to throw in most cases. He wasn't constantly under pressure and beating it...while he could do that, he generally had time to survey the field, let routes develop and deliver the ball with set feet.
 
Minstrel said:
I don't think Brady is the best quarterback currently, let alone arguably the best ever (as he would be to be ahead of Montana, or in that echelon with Montana and Unitas). Montana had better talent around him, but he also played in a less parity-driven league where the other contenders were also stacked. What prevents Brady's Patriots from being so stacked (the salary cap rules) also restrict every other team in the league. From a relative perspective, Brady's Patriots were the most talented team in football from about 2002-2007 or so. It's not a question of how objectively talented your teammates are...it's a question of how your team's talent stacks up against the rest of the league.

I do now think that he's a surefire Hall of Famer (on merit, not just on "won three championships" which I've never viewed as a good measure of an individual player in team sports). I don't think he's better than Peyton Manning, though. Manning is the one, IMO, who can compete with Montana and Unitas (and Marino, IMO) for greatest quarterback ever. Brady is more like a top-10/top-15 of all-time, to me.
Click to expand...

hmmmm I have issue with a few things. Brady won two Super Bowl MVP awards and has came up big time in countless big playoff games. Its more than just him playing with a team stacked in a parity-driven league.

Brady is definitely top 10 in my eyes, maybe even borderline top 5, despite never having Hall of Fame receivers around him like Manning did with Harrison and Montana did with Rice. Having a HOF caliber receiver means a lot to me as well.
 
Minstrel said:
You appeared to disagree with my original premise that those New England teams had the most talented overall teams, by which I'm referring to the entire roster.

If we agree on that, cool. I agree that their offense, alone, was not the most talented in the NFL. That was never my contention
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not sure what the defense has to do with evaluating Brady as a QB. I've heard people say that Brady's 3 rings are because of the defense, but when I look back at the playoff games in those years, I see Brady's offense putting up 24 or more in almost all the big games. Sure, the defense was good, but it was never a shutdown defense. Brady always had to put points on the scoreboard, and did so in crunch time.

As for the offensive line, the Patriots seemed to me (though I haven't researched this, so I may be wrong) to run the ball pretty effectively through that era, despite pretty uninspiring running backs. I agree that Brady has excellent pocket presence and poise, but I always felt he had a lot of time to throw in most cases. He wasn't constantly under pressure and beating it...while he could do that, he generally had time to survey the field, let routes develop and deliver the ball with set feet.
Click to expand...

You sure you aren't confusing their Randy Moss deep ball offense with their pre-Moss short passing attack? When Weiss was OC, almost every play was 3 step drop, quick routes and a whole lot of screen passes.

btw, here are the Pats rankings for rushing (y/r) from 02-07:

02- 27th
03- 30th
04- 18th
05- 30th
06- 18th
07- 14th

So yeah, i would say the offensive line (and running game as a whole) was pretty weak. And 2007 is only good because they were setting passing records and teams were only playing with 5 or 6 in the box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

santeesioux
Portland might get an NFL minor league team?
Replies
5
Views
864
SecretAgentMan
S
A
Sports and Anger Management
Replies
14
Views
1K
crandc
crandc
Fez Hammersticks
Talk about red-flags! (NFL prospect)
Replies
11
Views
710
Mamba
M
Sedatedfork
Help Zybot go to the Superbowl
Replies
7
Views
630
MickZagger
MickZagger
SlyPokerDog
Bills or Jaguars targeted to move to LA
Replies
8
Views
724
ABM
ABM

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top