2016 NFL THREAD - Super Bowl 51 - Patriots' Day: V - Screw Goodell

[King Postwhore]

I like Ben.  He's just a notch below Brady and Rodgers and for all but last year, Peyton.  He's always been around 4 or 5 with Brees being the other.

[cramx3]

Brees is definitely fading now that his career is closer to ending.

I personally think Cam Newton, Eli Manning (maybe a homer pick), and Russell Wilson are better than Ben.

[hefdaddy42]

I personally think Cam Newton, Eli Manning (maybe a homer pick), and Russell Wilson are better than Ben.

I agree with Newton and Wilson.

Ben is fantastic sometimes.  He's just a little too unpredictable for me to place as high as the top 3.

In fact, at the moment, I'm not sure of a top 3.  I think Brady and Rogers are the top 2.

[mikeyd23]

I don't consider Cam or Wilson in that class of quarterback yet, they both might get there someday, but they aren't there yet.

I personally think Cam Newton, Eli Manning (maybe a homer pick), and Russell Wilson are better than Ben.

Super homer pick  Eli isn't close to some of these guys we are talking about.

[King Postwhore]

Brees is definitely fading now that his career is closer to ending.

I personally think Cam Newton, Eli Manning (maybe a homer pick), and Russell Wilson are better than Ben.

Yes, last year both moved the needle into the top 5. no doubt.

[cramx3]

I don't consider Cam or Wilson in that class of quarterback yet, they both might get there someday, but they aren't there yet.

I personally think Cam Newton, Eli Manning (maybe a homer pick), and Russell Wilson are better than Ben.

Super homer pick  Eli isn't close to some of these guys we are talking about.

Stats and Rings say something different, but agree that he isn't top 3 either, but maybe the first ahead of Ben IMO. 

Wilson and Newton don't have the longevity of Ben to compare full careers but they are better QBs at the moment which is what I thought we were debating, hence why I don't list Brees up there anymore.

[mikeyd23]

Stats and Rings say something different, but agree that he isn't top 3 either, but maybe the first ahead of Ben IMO. 

Stats and rings in regards to Ben vs. Eli?

They both have two rings (which separates them a great deal from guys with one) but Ben's career regular season rating is better than Eli's...

[King Postwhore]

Yeah, Eli is top 10 but towards the bottom half for me.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Andrew Luck has top 1-3 potential. Let's see how his bounce back season goes.

But yeah, Roethlisburger has ALWAYS benefited from the weapons around him. But I'll give him his due... one of the toughest QBs I've ever seen play the game.

[cramx3]

Yeah, Eli is top 10 but towards the bottom half for me.

Right around where Ben would be for me.

Stats and Rings say something different, but agree that he isn't top 3 either, but maybe the first ahead of Ben IMO. 

Stats and rings in regards to Ben vs. Eli?

They both have two rings (which separates them a great deal from guys with one) but Ben's career regular season rating is better than Eli's...

But one guy actually was a beast in those playoffs wins and one was not as much.  Granted, they are so close and for me I ahve Eli just ahead of Ben most likely if I wrote this all out, but my homerism could be pushing it.

But yeah, Roethlisburger has ALWAYS benefited from the weapons around him. But I'll give him his due... one of the toughest QBs I've ever seen play the game.

This is the best part about him IMO, he is hard to take down and he plays through injuries.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

They both have two rings (which separates them a great deal from guys with one) but Ben's career regular season rating is better than Eli's...

Aaron Rodgers only has one.... and he's considered to be much better than those two dudes with two (rightly so).

Sorry.... hate the ring argument. That kind of thinking puts Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson over Dan Marino. Hard to use team championships to measure individual talent.

[cramx3]

It's not just rings though.  I can't see how that doesn't hold some value.  It's not everything, it's a team sport, but it's still important.

[mikeyd23]

It's not just rings though.  I can't see how that doesn't hold some value.  It's not everything, it's a team sport, but it's still important.

Right on. Rings aren't the only criteria that go into assessing how good a player is, but it certainly is an important criteria.

[bosk1]

It's not just rings though.  I can't see how that doesn't hold some value.  It's not everything, it's a team sport, but it's still important.

Right on. Rings aren't the only criteria that go into assessing how good a player is, but it certainly is an important criteria.

To me, they aren't much more than a tie-breaker. 

[TheCountOfNYC]

They both have two rings (which separates them a great deal from guys with one) but Ben's career regular season rating is better than Eli's...

Aaron Rodgers only has one.... and he's considered to be much better than those two dudes with two (rightly so).

Sorry.... hate the ring argument. That kind of thinking puts Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson over Dan Marino. Hard to use team championships to measure individual talent.

[mikeyd23]

Yeah like I said before, championships aren't the only criteria to measure a quarterback, but they certainly should be taken into account.

Quarterbacks are the most important players on football teams, so suggesting that a quarterbacks' success that lead to a teams success (winning a championship) isn't a measure of the player that should be taken into account is a little silly.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Yeah like I said before, championships aren't the only criteria to measure a quarterback, but they certainly should be taken into account.

Quarterbacks are the most important players on football teams, so suggesting that a quarterbacks' success that lead to a teams success (winning a championship) isn't a measure of the player that should be taken into account is a little silly.

Not silly at all. Compare Rotheslisburger's stake in the Super Bowl XL championship versus Joe Flacco's in SB XVII. Flacco was a big reason why the Ravens won that game. Big Ben was a casualty in Pittsburgh's efforts that day.

[mikeyd23]

So whether or not a quarterback has won zero championships or five, it shouldn't matter in assessing how good that player is at all? That's what you are saying?

[King Postwhore]

Yeah like I said before, championships aren't the only criteria to measure a quarterback, but they certainly should be taken into account.

Quarterbacks are the most important players on football teams, so suggesting that a quarterbacks' success that lead to a teams success (winning a championship) isn't a measure of the player that should be taken into account is a little silly.

Not silly at all. Compare Rotheslisburger's stake in the Super Bowl XL championship versus Joe Flacco's in SB XVII. Flacco was a big reason why the Ravens won that game. Big Ben was a casualty in Pittsburgh's efforts that day.

Yet I heard a lot of the Brady haters say, Brady wouldn't have won without Vinatieri yet who drove them down to get those field goals?  QB's take a lot of beef because they are in the limelight.  Ben did well.  I look at him between 4 and 6 right now.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

So whether or not a quarterback has won zero championships or five, it shouldn't matter in assessing how good that player is at all? That's what you are saying?

Correct. If a player is great, his greatness won't rely on how many rings he may have won along the way.

[mikeyd23]

So whether or not a quarterback has won zero championships or five, it shouldn't matter in assessing how good that player is at all? That's what you are saying?

Correct. If a player is great, his greatness won't rely on how many rings he may have won along the way.

Alright we can just agree to disagree on that one. 

I think that one of the things that makes great players great is winning championships.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Joe Flacco's not a great player, but he had a great postseason. Led to a championship, and a ginormous payday.

I'm just saying that player A isn't better than player B solely on rings is silly. Putting Ben and Eli above Rodgers because 2>1 is silly in my opinion.

[mikeyd23]

Joe Flacco's not a great player, but he had a great postseason. Led to a championship, and a ginormous payday.

I'm just saying that player A isn't better than player B solely on rings is silly. Putting Ben and Eli above Rodgers because 2>1 is silly in my opinion.

Right, and I never disagreed with that. I never suggested that rings should be "solely" used as THE criteria to assess players. I simply said that it should be taken into account as ONE of the criteria used to assess players.

[King Postwhore]

Right.  If Marino had 4 rings like Brady, it would catapult him to that all time level.  He's still great but he's never in the conversation as Montana, Brady, Manning.

[pogoowner]

Interesting stat that I just came across: since 2004, New Orleans has averaged the most points per game in games lost. I don't think Drew Brees gets enough credit for what he's done with that team.

Now, if you have a consistently bad defense, that number's naturally going to be higher, but he's done a lot without much support.

[King Postwhore]

Which is why he only got one SB ring.  After 2007, the Pats went way to one sided.  Their D was poor until 2014.  Yes a tram can win a SB being unbalanced but can they win more SB's if they are unbalanced?  I think not.

[hefdaddy42]

Who knows what various trams could or could not do?

[Snow Dog]

Which is why he only got one SB ring.  After 2007, the Pats went way to one sided.  Their D was poor until 2014.  Yes a tram can win a SB being unbalanced but can they win more SB's if they are unbalanced?  I think not.

I agree. Here's some examples:



We see here a tram too focused on offense. They obviously have to score a ton of points or they lose because their defense is like a sieve and plays worse than most peoples' grandmas. Examples are the Saints as mentioned above or the Oregon Ducks.



And on the opposite side, we have those too focused on defense. The ones who won the turnover battle, but still lose because the offense can't run a simple screen or draw to save their life  They also often own a mediocre, or worse, QB. Examples could be the 00's Bears or last year's Utah Utes team. (God I'm glad Travis Wilson is gone...)



And finally a balanced tram. One that operates smoothly and does its job well. Problem is people flock to these teams and bandwagon the shit out of them. Much like the Seattle Seahawks or Carolina Panthers in recent years, or the Patriots for the past two decades.

[King Postwhore]

Tram, team. It's all the same.

You jerks.

[hefdaddy42]

lol

[Cool Chris]

So, have you heard Russell Wilson got married? Because THAT IS ALL PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN SEATTLE. FFS!

Except apparently the chick he married, who is/was apparently famous in her own right, though I never heard of her till she and Wilson got together, is baby-mama to some d-bag who I also had never heard of, and who is apparently e-threatening Wilson. Or maybe just trying to sell albums/build street cred.

So yeah, when does the season start?

[cramx3]

So I guess that means that Russell Wilson is no longer a virgin! Good for him

[KevShmev]

Funny to see some say Brees has dropped off, when even last year he was better than most including Roethlisberger.

As for titles, sure, they matter, but when talking who is better currently, Ben's rings from 11 and 8 years ago do not. In the last couple years, Wilson and Newton have been better QBs and have had more team success.

[Stadler]

So whether or not a quarterback has won zero championships or five, it shouldn't matter in assessing how good that player is at all? That's what you are saying?

Correct. If a player is great, his greatness won't rely on how many rings he may have won along the way.

Alright we can just agree to disagree on that one. 

I think that one of the things that makes great players great is winning championships.

I agree with this.  Anyone - well, virtually - can throw for 400 yards and three touchdowns against a defense that has nothing to play for.  Do that year in and year out in the playoffs against the very best of the best playing like their lives depended on it...

... and you have Joe Montana and Tom Brady and a few select others. 

[KevShmev]

Except not even Brady and Montana played lights out year in and year out in the playoffs.  Montana had an awful 3-year stretch in the mid 80s, and Brady has had plenty of clunkers over the years. Even the best of the best aren't great in every playoff game.