NFC Championship game: VIKINGS vs SAINTS

Karlusss

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Most interceptions by any QB in the play-offs in nfl history. Who cares what his rating is? When it comes to the crunch Favre blows it in the play-offs more often then not just like he did last night..

That's a wildly misleading statistic to be throwing out if you're trying to bury Brett Favre. Probably the main reason he has that dishonour is because of the amount of playoff games he has played. And how do you get to the playoffs? By helping your team be one of the best teams in the NFL in the regular season.

That stat's not a choke thing, it's a longevity thing, and if anything is indicative of Favre being a great player, not a bad one.

themont85

eagle eye wrote: »

He injured his ankle earlier in the game. He also didn't have the open field in front of him that Aikman claimed. There was no way he was getting 10+ yards on that run. An incomplete pass means it's a 56 yard field goal attempt which is hopeless. Blaming the throw is just ridiculous. He was put into a position where he needed to make a play, but his receivers were covered. Brady, Rivers and Manning would have been just as screwed as him, they'd have been more screwed actually, since even an injured Favre is more mobile than either of them.

The blame lies with the the fumbles and the bad clock management by the Vikings coaches, possibly Childress.

By the way Chucky, yes he has more ints than anybody else in the playoffs but he has played more games has more yardage and is one td off the record held by Montana for tds. His number of ints is no big deal, its not like it stands out as very bad.

Just compare him to Manning who has 25tds and 18 ints, Favre has 44td and 30 ints. which is a better td to ints ratio.

Using stats like that to prove a guy isn't clutch like that is BS. For the record though Manning is 27 TDs to 18 Ints (pedant alert), only slighty better and a pointless difference to define 'clutch'. There are other factors like fumbles which aren't taken into account and more crucially the situational stats.

I am slightly inclined to agree with Chucky here, I mean two gastly Ints when your team are driving for a win to go to the SB is pretty bad. Then again Tom Brady who people go on and on about in the playoffs threw his own Int going for the SB in 2007 vs the Colts, I'd hardly say he's a bottler.

But AD was pretty bad last night as were all the Vikings, they failed to execute properly like the Colts early in their run or a Leinster if we compare to rugby. Both of them 'learnt' this along the way and it'll be a great indicator of that teams character to see them come back next year.

davyjose

Saints

themont85 wrote: »

Then again Tom Brady who people go on and on about in the playoffs threw his own Int going for the SB in 2007 vs the Colts, I'd hardly say he's a bottler.

I really wish you hadn't gone there

I'm out of beer and popcorn

themont85

davyjose wrote: »

I really wish you hadn't gone there

Its not a Brady/Manning point, its to do with Farve and his perceived lack of clutch. Just making the point that everybody can have those 'mad', lack of clutch, moments. Farve's ones seem to be a lot sillier though, throwing ridiculous ones across the body when he doesnt need to.

One point I'd say is that the Vikings would be have struggled to beat out Green Bay for the division. They were mediocre last year and have had a huge upgrade with him, he has lifted the talent there. Without him I don't see them near a NFC championship game. But he's not supposed to be the franchise player thats Peterson, who hasn't been anywhere near his capabilities this year imo. They had better hope he stays and AD can lift it because the Packers are a force and the Lions are on a upswing whilst the Bears have plenty of talanted guys if they get it together.

Karlusss

"Clutch" is blown way, way out of proportion with regards to NFL players. People are saying Favre has none despite his Super Bowl and his patently very successful career. But I remember last year people saying "oh Rivers is good but he's not clutch", and then coming here this year and having people go "well, if Rivers is one thing, he's clutch".

Brett ****ed up a difficult third and long at the end of a game he'd been beaten up for, a third and long he shouldn't have been in, in a score situation he WOULDN'T have been in if other players hadn't let the team down. Adrian Peterson's not clutch - literally, because he can't clutch the ball. Maybe Sage Rosenfels is the most clutch guy in the NFL, but what does it matter?

Meaningless term, applied retrospectively and nearsightedly.

davyjose

Saints

Edit: @The Mont: I was only kidding man, just wish I could see the look on eagle eye's face when someone criticises Brady

Peterson is a joke. There, I've said it. I don't care how many plays the guy makes (and they've been few this season, let's be frank), it's not even about "winning games for your team" at this point. It's about not losing them. Seriously, when people turn from saying "what can AP do", to "please, please, please don't let your <4 yards per run result in a couple of fumbles", your chances as a future hof'er are in doubt. Peterson hasn't even been the 5th best Viking this season, not even nearly. And he lost them a shot at the super Bowl, much, much, much more than Favre did. I'd nearly prefer Joe Addai at this stage. Actually, I would.

davyjose

Saints

Karlusss wrote: »

"Clutch" is blown way, way out of proportion with regards to NFL players. People are saying Favre has none despite his Super Bowl and his patently very successful career. But I remember last year people saying "oh Rivers is good but he's not clutch", and then coming here this year and having people go "well, if Rivers is one thing, he's clutch".

Brett ****ed up a difficult third and long at the end of a game he'd been beaten up for, a third and long he shouldn't have been in, in a score situation he WOULDN'T have been in if other players hadn't let the team down. Adrian Peterson's not clutch - literally, because he can't clutch the ball. Maybe Sage Rosenfels is the most clutch guy in the NFL, but what does it matter?

Meaningless term, applied retrospectively and nearsightedly.

Agreed, the term should apply almost exclusively to Kickers.
But tbh, it's just that there are too many sensationalist idiots out there. Favre was incredible all season. the Vikes would have been hopeless without him, yet what gets reported, and remembered, will be the INT. The proof of that is the BS you hear about him from Pack fans, and media-ites, about the '07 season (yet to hear the same sh!te about Rodgers), the guy singlehandedly brought these teams to NFC Champuionship games, because he IS Brett Favre!!!

Honestly, it's like having the greatest session of your life, then whinging about the hangover :rolleyes::(

eagle eye

Russian Roulette with a gun

Karlusss wrote: »

"Clutch" is blown way, way out of proportion with regards to NFL players. People are saying Favre has none despite his Super Bowl and his patently very successful career. But I remember last year people saying "oh Rivers is good but he's not clutch", and then coming here this year and having people go "well, if Rivers is one thing, he's clutch".

Brett ****ed up a difficult third and long at the end of a game he'd been beaten up for, a third and long he shouldn't have been in, in a score situation he WOULDN'T have been in if other players hadn't let the team down. Adrian Peterson's not clutch - literally, because he can't clutch the ball. Maybe Sage Rosenfels is the most clutch guy in the NFL, but what does it matter?

Meaningless term, applied retrospectively and nearsightedly.

Clutch is important and its been proven over and over again. What clutch means in a QB is being accurate and making good decisions under huge pressure.
In the playoffs in a tight game there is so much more pressure on a QB and some guys step up to the plate and deliver consistently whereas others just fall to pieces.
Yes you can win a superbowl without being clutch, yes you can lose a playoff game and still be a clutch player.

The greatest example of a clutch QB for me would be Big Ben. The guy got it done in the playoffs twice last year when his back was to the wall. Brady is clearly another one.
Look at Manning though in the playoffs and he really was terrible in the playoffs, people were blaming the OL last year which was unfair he just couldn't find anybody and didn't throw the ball away which amounts to bad decisions, it was the same the year before when he had got two late chances to win the game but failed. Even in 2006 he did his best not to win in the playoffs and the Colts D stepped up.

This year Manning has been different, I don't know if it was but I'd guess the game against the Jets was his best playoff performance ever and they were behind by two scores so he was under pressure and he stepped up. If the Colts win it this year its on Peyton, he got them there and he deserves all the kudos that go with that but he has been getting them unfairly in the past, the Superbowl MVP in 2006 was a complete joke in fairness, that should have been Dominick Rhodes award.

davyjose

Saints

eagle eye wrote: »

This year Manning has been different, I don't know if it was but I'd guess the game against the Jets was his best playoff performance ever and they were behind by two scores so he was under pressure and he stepped up. If the Colts win it this year its on Peyton, he got them there and he deserves all the kudos that go with that but he has been getting them unfairly in the past, the Superbowl MVP in 2006 was a complete joke in fairness, that should have been Dominick Rhodes award.

In fairness, he's the only QB with a post-season perfect rating. Having said that, it was against a much lighter D. Last night's display, of systematically figuring out the opponents gameplan, and then destroying it was unreal.

And in fairness, both Tom and Ben leaned heavily on their D's to win their championships. Saying dominic rhodes deserved the MVP is fair enough. But how many MVP's did Adam V win?

Chucky the tree

Karlusss wrote: »

That's a wildly misleading statistic to be throwing out if you're trying to bury Brett Favre. Probably the main reason he has that dishonour is because of the amount of playoff games he has played. And how do you get to the playoffs? By helping your team be one of the best teams in the NFL in the regular season.

That stat's not a choke thing, it's a longevity thing, and if anything is indicative of Favre being a great player, not a bad one.

The fact he's made to the post-season so many times and only has one ring to show for it tells me he is a choker.

themont85 wrote: »

Using stats like that to prove a guy isn't clutch like that is BS. For the record though Manning is 27 TDs to 18 Ints (pedant alert), only slighty better and a pointless difference to define 'clutch'. There are other factors like fumbles which aren't taken into account and more crucially the situational stats.

I am slightly inclined to agree with Chucky here, I mean two gastly Ints when your team are driving for a win to go to the SB is pretty bad. Then again Tom Brady who people go on and on about in the playoffs threw his own Int going for the SB in 2007 vs the Colts, I'd hardly say he's a bottler.

But AD was pretty bad last night as were all the Vikings, they failed to execute properly like the Colts early in their run or a Leinster if we compare to rugby. Both of them 'learnt' this along the way and it'll be a great indicator of that teams character to see them come back next year.

Brady has 3 Superbowl rings, If Favre had that many I certainly wouldn't be questioning him.

Karlusss wrote: »

"Clutch" is blown way, way out of proportion with regards to NFL players. People are saying Favre has none despite his Super Bowl and his patently very successful career. But I remember last year people saying "oh Rivers is good but he's not clutch", and then coming here this year and having people go "well, if Rivers is one thing, he's clutch".

Brett ****ed up a difficult third and long at the end of a game he'd been beaten up for, a third and long he shouldn't have been in, in a score situation he WOULDN'T have been in if other players hadn't let the team down. Adrian Peterson's not clutch - literally, because he can't clutch the ball. Maybe Sage Rosenfels is the most clutch guy in the NFL, but what does it matter?

Meaningless term, applied retrospectively and nearsightedly.

davyjose wrote: »

Agreed, the term should apply almost exclusively to Kickers.
But tbh, it's just that there are too many sensationalist idiots out there. Favre was incredible all season. the Vikes would have been hopeless without him, yet what gets reported, and remembered, will be the INT. The proof of that is the BS you hear about him from Pack fans, and media-ites, about the '07 season (yet to hear the same sh!te about Rodgers), the guy singlehandedly brought these teams to NFC Champuionship games, because he IS Brett Favre!!!

Honestly, it's like having the greatest session of your life, then whinging about the hangover :rolleyes::(

Clutch is blown way out of proportion? No chance. Just ask Steeler fans as Eagle Eye points out. If Favre gets all the credit for bringing them to the championship game then he should get all the credit for blowing it as well, he can't have his cake and eat it. Favre stats for play-off games he's lost is 19-25 with a QB rating of 64. Simple fact is when Favre ****s up, he does it in style and he does it on a regular basis in the play-offs.

eagle eye

Russian Roulette with a gun

davyjose wrote: »

In fairness, he's the only QB with a post-season perfect rating. Having said that, it was against a much lighter D. Last night's display, of systematically figuring out the opponents gameplan, and then destroying it was unreal.

And in fairness, both Tom and Ben leaned heavily on their D's to win their championships. Saying dominic rhodes deserved the MVP is fair enough. But how many MVP's did Adam V win?

Vinatieri didn't win any but I don't think he deserved any either. I would say that Ty Law could have got it in 2001, but the game winning drive by Brady that set up the field goal was what won the game in fairness. Deoin Branch got it in 2005 but I deffo think Rodney Harrison should have got that one.

Pherekydes

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Most interceptions by any QB in the play-offs in nfl history. Who cares what his rating is?

Since the QB rating is, in part, dependent on the number of Ints thrown you can't disregard one without disregarding the other. He also has the most regular season interceptions in league history. And 3 (should have been 5) MVPs. And the most wins. And the most 4th quarter come-back wins. The most TDs, the most everything. As pointed out, he has the most Ints in post-season because he has played so long.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The fact he's made to the post-season so many times and only has one ring to show for it tells me he is a choker.

Manning has one win, too. :rolleyes:

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Pherekydes wrote: »

Manning has one win, too. :rolleyes:

And Dan Marino has none but yet considered a quality QB and some say he was a clutch QB.

For me I don't believe the hype when it comes to clutch. Manning, Favre, Brees, Warner, Rivers have all won games single handily in the past. And they have all choked at some point or other. If we are going to say a QB is a choke artist or not a Clutch QB because he loses in the playoffs then you might aswell lump all the ones I mentioned in the same boat.

A Head Coach of a High School recently told me that give him a QB that will be consistent and lead his troops into any battle. He said too many people focus on things like the word Clutch. A lot of the greats have lost games for their teams where they should have won, It doesn't make them any less the QB.

Let not forget QB's still need the team around them playing 100% until the fat lady sings. In the case of Favre at the weekend this wasn't the case. To say he choked is redonculous at best. He got them to that scoreline in the first place and was let down by guys around him. Yes he threw an Int but it didn't lose them the game. The filed goal in Overtime did. That game was won on the flip of a coin. The only thing he is guilty of is not getting them into a scoring position on that drive. He wasn't the first and wont be the last.

themont85

eagle eye wrote: »

Clutch is important and its been proven over and over again. What clutch means in a QB is being accurate and making good decisions under huge pressure.
In the playoffs in a tight game there is so much more pressure on a QB and some guys step up to the plate and deliver consistently whereas others just fall to pieces.
Yes you can win a superbowl without being clutch, yes you can lose a playoff game and still be a clutch player.

The greatest example of a clutch QB for me would be Big Ben. The guy got it done in the playoffs twice last year when his back was to the wall. Brady is clearly another one.
Look at Manning though in the playoffs and he really was terrible in the playoffs, people were blaming the OL last year which was unfair he just couldn't find anybody and didn't throw the ball away which amounts to bad decisions, it was the same the year before when he had got two late chances to win the game but failed. Even in 2006 he did his best not to win in the playoffs and the Colts D stepped up.

This year Manning has been different, I don't know if it was but I'd guess the game against the Jets was his best playoff performance ever and they were behind by two scores so he was under pressure and he stepped up. If the Colts win it this year its on Peyton, he got them there and he deserves all the kudos that go with that but he has been getting them unfairly in the past, the Superbowl MVP in 2006 was a complete joke in fairness, that should have been Dominick Rhodes award.

Did you watch that game at all??? Manning completed 25 for 42 with 1 td and no Ints, a 90 odd rating. The Colts lost because the Chargers punter was unbelievable at pegging the Colts inside their own 5 3 times and 20 all other times! And Sproles was sick too and was killing their D! You can't put a defeat down to somebody playing badly all the time, which Manning didn't even play particularly so, and give credit to the opposition! Lest we forget the Colts fell into the ridiculous OT rules of the NFL and never had a chance when it went into OT.

And the last bit is crap too. He doesn't have the best post season stats of all time but he has had a few very good games with one exceptional comeback win vs the Pats. I don't see how you can describe Big Ben as clutch just because he had a great couple of drives for the Steelers and not Manning who made a drive and a comeback for the Colts when lets be honest there couldn't have been much more pressure on the team given past team failings.

My position is similar to Chuckys. 'Clutch' as per eagleeye's definition is a load of balls imo, clutch isn't the whole 60 minutes, there's nerves but ultimately people settle down or if they don't thats bottling it (which you rarely see from Qbs but kickers certaintly, the way the kicker gets several chances to the Qbs multiple ones is a major factor). Clutch is game winning drives ie John Elway and the Drive or Montana in the 89 Bowl.

I do believe in general it is often overexaggerated. Montana had memorable ones in 82 and 89 but lets remember he was pulled in 88 versus the Vikings! Elway has the Drive but lost as a team in 3 SBs! Brady has 3 very notable ones, Oakland, and the two Bowls but also has the Colts in 07! Big Ben has last year but was none to impressive vs the Seahawks in 05! Nobody is Superman!

I do see Chuckys point though. Farve clearly has a hero complex or at least piles the team on his shoulders. Throwing multiple Ints for the Packers in some year at playoff time was fine by me, well not fine, but in a lot of those games the team was awful and he was chasing it. But there is a clear pattern with Farve, he won in 97 sure but lets remember they hockeyed the Pats. Personally speaking I don't think there are many better Qbs when your team is on top like Farve but when its all on him he's failed. SB in 1998 to tie it up and two horrendus Ints in the last 2 of 3 Championship games when they really weren't neccesary.

eagle eye

Russian Roulette with a gun

themont85 wrote: »

Did you watch that game at all???

Which game, last year or the year before?

I watched both anyways. Last year Manning took too many sacks and a number of them were his own fault, he had time to throw the ball away but held onto it trying to find somebody before they got to him.

The year before he failed to hit the accurate passes late in the game that he has been known for, regular season after regular season.

This stuff happened to him in tight games in the playoffs too often.

As I said this year he has been impressive, especially his performance against the Jets the other night, that is one of the all time greatest playoff performances I've witnessed.

As you can see I give credit when its earned which it was this past weekend and if he goes on to win the superbowl this year, its all on Peyton Manning and he deserves all the kudos because he got them there with an exceptional performance.

Dodge

Russian Roulette with a gun

So we're all agreed then. Favre, Warner, Manning and Brady are all chokers, and all ****e

Chucky the tree

If Manning doesnt win another superbowl before his career is over he'll go down as a choker, don't know how anyone can disagree and it should also leave him out of "best QB ever" debates. I feel the exact same with Favre, simply great QB's should win more then one superbowl when they have double-digit post season play off appearances. Themont nails it for me, he'll go down as a great QB but of the current QB's playing there at least 5 I'd rather starting under center then Favre.

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If Manning doesnt win another superbowl before his career is over he'll go down as a choker, don't know how anyone can disagree and it should also leave him out of "best QB ever" debates. I feel the exact same with Favre, simply great QB's should win more then one superbowl when they have double-digit post season play off appearances. Themont nails it for me, he'll go down as a great QB but of the current QB's playing there at least 5 I'd rather starting under center then Favre.

Dan Marino must be the ultimate choker then.

eagle eye

Russian Roulette with a gun

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Dan Marino must be the ultimate choker then.

No that would be Jim Kelly. Another great but boy was he bad in big games.

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

eagle eye wrote: »

No that would be Jim Kelly. Another great but boy was he bad in big games.

Well I was quoting Chucky considering he said that if Manning can't win another bowl he is a choker. I asked about Marino because by Chucky's standards Marino must be the ultimate choker.

_Buck Rogers

Saints

Sorry Chucky but most if not all of your posts in this thread have been BS. There is no point in quoting them as there is just too many to quote. Your claims in general go against the statistics and Qb ratings. Your dislike for certain players is shining through and you are just derailing this thread completely.

Chucky the tree

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Dan Marino must be the ultimate choker then.

Never saw him play, before my time. But his post season stats are pretty awful. 8-10 record with 27TD's a 25 Turnover for a 76 rating.

_Buck Rogers wrote: »

Sorry Chucky but most if not all of your posts in this thread have been BS. There is no point in quoting them as there is just too many to quote. Your claims in general go against the statistics and Qb ratings. Your dislike for certain players is shining through and you are just derailing this thread completely.

Report my posts and put him on ignore then.


Edit: just to compare Favre stats post-season, whos a nailed on 1st ballot HOFer, to Kurt Warner who while a likely HOFer isn't nailed on. Lloyd made this post in the Kurt Warner thread before this seasons play-offs. Warner only has one ring but I certainly wouldn't call him a choker.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's only the NFL that is really considered relevant. And while I hear what you're saying, Warner is a little different though! Post season numbers after 12 games in the playoffs:

Completions 300
Attempts 436
Comp Pct 68.8
Yards 3747
TD's 31
Int 13
Yds\Att 8.59
Rush TD 2

I can't find any passer in league history who's done better in the post season and Warner's numbers aren't going down as the sample size increases.

EDIT: Montana is probably better on reflection! Being runner up to Joe Ballgame is no disgrace though.

This year in the play-offs he finished with stats

completetion PCT: 78
Yards: 584
TD's: 5
Int's: 1
Avg. 9.9
Rating 129.1

Simple fact is Favre has a history of making boneheaded play at crucial times in play-offs, dont really see how anyone can claim otherwise.

davyjose

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If Manning doesnt win another superbowl before his career is over he'll go down as a choker, don't know how anyone can disagree and it should also leave him out of "best QB ever" debates.

Who'd be your best ever then? Terry Bradshaw?

Chucky the tree

davyjose wrote: »

Who'd be your best ever then? Terry Bradshaw?

Can't answer best ever, haven't seen every QB to play in the nfl. But if Brady finished his career with 3 rings and Manning only one then I'd struggle to see why Manning would be considered better then Brady.

death1234567

Chucky the tree wrote: »

But if Brady finished his career with 3 rings and Manning only one then I'd struggle to see why Manning would be considered better then Brady.

Why, Manning is clearly better. Its not all about rings when it comes to individual performance, rings are won by teams not QB's.

Chucky the tree

death1234567 wrote: »

Why, Manning is clearly better. Its not all about rings when it comes to individual performance, rings are won by teams not QB's.

How would you rate Mannings individual performances in the play-offs? Do you think it's been as good as his regular season form through the years?

davyjose

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Can't answer best ever, haven't seen every QB to play in the nfl. But if Brady finished his career with 3 rings and Manning only one then I'd struggle to see why Manning would be considered better then Brady.

Well, then you have to say the same about Troy Aikman? Do you think Aikman was a better QB than Manning?

Edit: FWIW I'm not making comparisons between Brady and Manning, I just find the "more rings you have, better you are as a QB" argument to be a deeply flawed one. Marino was one of the best QB's the game has seen, and has less rings than Trent dilfer.

Chucky the tree

davyjose wrote: »

Well, then you have to say the same about Troy Aikman? Do you think Aikman was a better QB than Manning?

Edit: FWIW I'm not making comparisons between Brady and Manning, I just find the "more rings you have, better you are as a QB" argument to be a deeply flawed one. Marino was one of the best QB's the game has seen, and has less rings than Trent dilfer.

Massive difference between Aikman's compared to Brady and Mannings. Aikman has 161 TD's 141 Ints and 81 QB rating, Brady has 225 TD's 99 Ints and a 93 QB rating. I fail to see why Manning is clearly a better QB then Brady, to me both players are excellent, however if I had to pick one I'd go with Brady purely based on rings and his play-off record.

Edit: I'm definitely not saying rings are the be all and end all. I certainly don't think Trent Dilfer is a better QB then Marino or just as good as Manning or Favre. But I think when you have two great QB's(like Brady and Manning for example) that the number of rings each player has and there play-off stats should definitely factor into an argument about who is better. Same reason I think Favre lack of rings and poor play-off performances should count against him when talking about the best of the best in terms of QBs.

davyjose

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Massive difference between Aikman's compared to Brady and Mannings. Aikman has 161 TD's 141 Ints and 81 QB rating, Brady has 225 TD's 99 Ints and a 93 QB rating. I fail to see why Manning is clearly a better QB then Brady, to me both players are excellent, however if I had to pick one I'd go with Brady purely based on rings and his play-off record.

Edit: I'm definitely not saying rings are the be all and end all. I certainly don't think Trent Dilfer is a better QB then Marino or just as good as Manning or Favre. But I think when you have two great QB's(like Brady and Manning for example) that the number of rings each player has and there play-off stats should definitely factor into an argument about who is better. Same reason I think Favre lack of rings and poor play-off performances should count against him when talking about the best of the best in terms of QBs.

i accept what you're saying, but it's still a flawed argument, to me. Let's take an example: Sunday week, the Colts are ahead 30-28, and the Saints have a 50 yard field goal with 5 seconds on the clock. the Saint's score, Manning is a very good QB; the Saints miss, Manning becomes one of the greats. That makes no sense. And tbh, that's what so many people are effectively saying.

Karlusss

And you can extend that metaphor to the idea of clutch quarterbacks in general, a fifty yard kick being good or no good could easily be what wins or loses a ring for a quarterback. Or a running back fumbling. Or any amount of other things.

To consider Peyton Manning of all people a failure if he ends his career with one ring is ridiculous. There are thirty-two teams competing for that championship in a salary-capped league with a rookie draft. He starts every single year with, theoretically, the same chance of winning as everyone else (and bear in mind that a lot of the reason the Colts are considered elite IS Peyton Manning, so that hardly militates in his favour), and he managed to win a ring, make another Super Bowl that he hasn't lost yet, and make the playoffs a bunch of other times.

And, as four regular season MVPs would seem to indicate, the guy is a) consistent on a level almost no-one else has ever been and b) the player who is of most value to his team maybe of anyone ever.

Story moral: if Peyton Manning retires tomorrow, he's still in the conversation for GOAT.

bruschi

dont think anyone ever said Manning would be a failure if he retires with one ring, just that some would see rings being an important factor in a discussion on the best ever QB. its an opinion of someone, it doesnt mean they are wrong. some place importance on getting the job done and getting the main prize, others see it in stats and records.

davyjose

Saints

bruschi wrote: »

dont think anyone ever said Manning would be a failure if he retires with one ring, just that some would see rings being an important factor in a discussion on the best ever QB. its an opinion of someone, it doesnt mean they are wrong. some place importance on getting the job done and getting the main prize, others see it in stats and records.

But a QB takes way too much blame/glory for wins. It doesn't really have any bearing on how good they are.
You're a Pats fan, well, Brady, through no fault of his own could have only 1 ring. The fact is, he relied on teammates to finish off certain games. So how would that make him less of a QB than he is today? Do you really think Brady would be worse if Adam V had missed those kicks?
Edit: it's the same with Favre - he didn't lose the game the other night. He threw the INT, but that game should have been well wrapped up by then.

bruschi

davyjose wrote: »

But a QB takes way too much blame/glory for wins. It doesn't really have any bearing on how good they are.
You're a Pats fan, well, Brady, through no fault of his own could have only 1 ring. The fact is, he relied on teammates to finish off certain games. So how would that make him less of a QB than he is today? Do you really think Brady would be worse if Adam V had missed those kicks?
Edit: it's the same with Favre - he didn't lose the game the other night. He threw the INT, but that game should have been well wrapped up by then.

wasnt my opinion, was just pointing out that people are over reacting to someone else's opinion, and it is just that, an opinion.

the point about Brady is a bit mute tho, if I am going to directly respond to it. It was Brady who got them into the position where vinatieri could kick it. if he had thrown an interception, and lost the game, then you could argue he wasnt as good. but he didnt, he made completions and got them a chance to win, the trademarks of a QB who is better than good.

you are right though about the blame/glory element of it. QBs only have to have a decent year to be an MVP, or do ok in the 'bowl to win MVP. A running back or WR has to be unbelievably excellent, and a defensive player has no chance.

davyjose

Saints

bruschi wrote: »

the point about Brady is a bit mute tho, if I am going to directly respond to it. It was Brady who got them into the position where vinatieri could kick it. if he had thrown an interception, and lost the game, then you could argue he wasnt as good. but he didnt, he made completions and got them a chance to win, the trademarks of a QB who is better than good.

Exactly my point. Brady was brilliant for those Rings, that's the point - if Adam V had missed would that make him any less of a QB? Of course not, but you'd have people going "ah brady only has X amount of Rings".

eagle eye

Russian Roulette with a gun

Karlusss wrote: »

And you can extend that metaphor to the idea of clutch quarterbacks in general, a fifty yard kick being good or no good could easily be what wins or loses a ring for a quarterback. Or a running back fumbling. Or any amount of other things.
To consider Peyton Manning of all people a failure if he ends his career with one ring is ridiculous. There are thirty-two teams competing for that championship in a salary-capped league with a rookie draft. He starts every single year with, theoretically, the same chance of winning as everyone else (and bear in mind that a lot of the reason the Colts are considered elite IS Peyton Manning, so that hardly militates in his favour), and he managed to win a ring, make another Super Bowl that he hasn't lost yet, and make the playoffs a bunch of other times.

You see here is the crux of the matter, you want to credit Manning with making the Colts an elite team but then when he doesn't do it in the playoffs you want to say its not his fault. Thats just ridiculous.

Karlusss wrote: »

And, as four regular season MVPs would seem to indicate, the guy is a) consistent on a level almost no-one else has ever been and b) the player who is of most value to his team maybe of anyone ever.

And here we have it, nobody is questioning that Manning has been stunning in the regular season, but he has been extremely poor in most tight playoff games.

Karlusss wrote: »

Story moral: if Peyton Manning retires tomorrow, he's still in the conversation for GOAT.

Not a chance, Montana is the undoubted no.1 and the only one thats playing right now that has any chance to overtake him is Tom Brady and thats if he manages to get another ring and has a season like 2007.
If Manning gets to three rings he will certainly be in the conversation but he is nowhere near it right now.

How did we get into a Manning debate by the way

davyjose

Saints

eagle eye wrote: »

And here we have it, nobody is questioning that Manning has been stunning in the regular season, but he has been extremely poor in most tight playoff games.

Sorry to stray even further OT, but that's a bit of a fallacy you seem to push, eagle - since 2003, Manning has had 1 losing game with a less than 90 passer rating. Ironically the Super Bowl winning year his passer rating was generally low, but the '05 Steelers loss, and the two San diego games he had a passer rating in the 90's.

eagle eye wrote: »

How did we get into a Manning debate by the way

Lol, I think he's just a good example of the Rings Vs Ability debate.

bruschi

davyjose wrote: »

Exactly my point. Brady was brilliant for those Rings, that's the point - if Adam V had missed would that make him any less of a QB? Of course not, but you'd have people going "ah brady only has X amount of Rings".

think this is kinda going in circles here. Manning had chances to beat other teams, but his mistakes in playoff games cost him. Same with Favre the other night, he had a chance to have a good finish, but didnt, he threw an interception. It had nothing to do with a kicker missing, it had all to do with an interception. throwing an interception to lose a game, or a kicker missing after you drive down the field are not the same.

if Brady didnt give Vinatieri a chance to kick, then people would say he only has x amount of rings.

this is worryingly turning into another Manning/brady dick measuring competition which it shouldnt be, so I'm out!

Chucky the tree

The reason it wouldn't make Brady any less of a QB is because in those games he performed brillianty. Something Favre(and Manning for the most part) can't do in the play-offs consistently. Lets say Viniteri miss all those SB kicks and the patriots lost all 3 Superbowls Brady would have still finished with the following stats:

2001 1-0 Rating 88.6
2003 3-1 rating 100.5
2004 2-0 rating 110
Totat: 6-1 Rating 98.6

Compare that to Favre post-season performance is games his team has lost

1993 Lose to Cowboys - 2-2 80.9 rating
1994 lose to Cowboys - 0-1 58.2 rating
1995 Lose to cowboys - 3-2 84
1997 Lose to Denver 3-1 91.0
1998 Lose to 49ers 2-2 79.7
2001 Lose to the Rams 2-6 53.5
2002 Lose to falcons 1-2 54.5
2003 Lose to eagles 2-1 82.4
2004 Lose to Vikings 1-4 55.4
2007 Lose to Giants 2-2 70.7
2009 Lose to Saints 1-2 70

19-25 Rating 64.

Those stats say it all to me, simple fact is Favre's post-season loses come when he generally posts up some shocking numbers. Warner lost his last Superbowl against the Steelers after throwing 3TD to 1 Int and posting a 117 QB rating. While Brady's lose to the giants in the 07 final was poor for him he still didnt throw an Int and posted a rating that is better then all of the ratings Favre has posted bar 2.

Pherekydes

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The reason...

You're comparing games Favre lost with games Brady MIGHT have lost if his kicker missed?

Buddy, you've completely lost the plot.

Favre didn't lose to the Eagles in '03. His Fcuking defence did. Remember 4th and 26? In 2007, Favre should never have thrown that int in OT because Tynes should have kicked that FG as time expired. It was simply amazing that a 38 year-old QB was able to throw in minus 22 degrees, let alone play 5 quarters. In SB32, the D let them down big time. And this year, the Vikes' all-history RB, Adrian 'butterfingers' Peterson, spent all day putting the perfectly good ball on the turf. Not Brett Favre's fault.

Chucky the tree

Pherekydes wrote: »

You're comparing games Favre lost with games Brady MIGHT have lost if his kicker missed?

Buddy, you've completely lost the plot.

Favre didn't lose to the Eagles in '03. His Fcuking defence did. Remember 4th and 26? In 2007, Favre should never have thrown that int in OT because Tynes should have kicked that FG as time expired. It was simply amazing that a 38 year-old QB was able to throw in minus 22 degrees, let alone play 5 quarters. In SB32, the D let them down big time. And this year, the Vikes' all-history RB, Adrian 'butterfingers' Peterson, spent all day putting the perfectly good ball on the turf. Not Brett Favre's fault.

I did it because other people claimed that the only difference between Brady and Mannin/Favre is the fact Vinetari nailed his kicks when that isn't true. The difference is Brady performed to his regular season standard and came up with the throws when it mattered. Brady leads his team into FG situations twice in OT to secure Superbowl victory so you can't say he had it easy. Favre didn't either but instead Favre throws crucial int's where as Brady doesn't. To me it seems it's never Favres fault, it's always his defence, or his running back, or because the teams opposition kicker misses a FG to win a game and and it gives Favre another chance to throw an int. :rolleyes: :pac: Amazed you can actually use that as an excuse to defend Favres int.

Pherekydes

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Amazed you can actually use that as an excuse to defend Favres int.

Well duh yeah. It is a valid defence. If the Giants won the game in regulation, Favre wouldn't have thrown that int. Simple as.

It seems like with you that it's always Favre's fault when his team loses. The operative word in that sentence is TEAM. Bad defence, fumbleitis, dropitis. A lot of the time the QB gets the blame when he didn't drive his team to within FG range, but people (who like to blame the QB) conveniently omit the 3 lost fumbles that might have made a world of difference.

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well duh yeah. It is a valid defence. If the Giants won the game in regulation, Favre wouldn't have thrown that int. Simple as.

It seems like with you that it's always Favre's fault when his team loses. The operative word in that sentence is TEAM. Bad defence, fumbleitis, dropitis. A lot of the time the QB gets the blame when he didn't drive his team to within FG range, but people (who like to blame the QB) conveniently omit the 3 lost fumbles that might have made a world of difference.

I have to agree with this. Ever since Passing the Football became more popular in the NFL the QB's are now the worst enemy and apparently always at fault for a team losing the game. But with guys like Brett Favre who clearly make a difference to a team like he did for the Packers he will always get blamed for the team failing.

Take Tom Brady. He was getting blamed for being sh1t all season long and I said it on many occaisons he was not 100% to blame and I was told I was wrong. Then when the Pats crash out of the playoffs people were still blaming Brady. But to sum up the Pats this season they were not good enough all round contrary to many beliefs including Pats fans. Our defense was pathetic but yet people defended it. And low and behold the Ravens proved it in the Wild card game.

QBs are not a Super breed and always depend on the others around them to also perform. If his O-line don't perform he is put on his ass, if his WR don't perform they don't catch footballs, when his RB doesn't perform he is put in a position to throw more and my last point when his defense don't do jack sh1t it forces the Offense especially the QB to perform even more.

Have we all forgotten American Football is a team sport? This thread has become redonculous at this point.

Chucky the tree

Pherekydes wrote: »

You're comparing games Favre lost with games Brady MIGHT have lost if his kicker missed?

Buddy, you've completely lost the plot.

Favre didn't lose to the Eagles in '03. His Fcuking defence did. Remember 4th and 26? In 2007, Favre should never have thrown that int in OT because Tynes should have kicked that FG as time expired. It was simply amazing that a 38 year-old QB was able to throw in minus 22 degrees, let alone play 5 quarters. In SB32, the D let them down big time. And this year, the Vikes' all-history RB, Adrian 'butterfingers' Peterson, spent all day putting the perfectly good ball on the turf. Not Brett Favre's fault.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well duh yeah. It is a valid defence. If the Giants won the game in regulation, Favre wouldn't have thrown that int. Simple as.


It seems like with you that it's always Favre's fault when his team loses. The operative word in that sentence is TEAM. Bad defence, fumbleitis, dropitis. A lot of the time the QB gets the blame when he didn't drive his team to within FG range, but people (who like to blame the QB) conveniently omit the 3 lost fumbles that might have made a world of difference.

You've changed your tune quickly. It's either a team game or it isn't. The QB gets the blame just like a lot of the time he unfairly gets the credit, it's the nature of the position. I find it amazing everyone ready to jump to Favre defence and claim it's a team game and it's not his fault while throwing Peterson, the HC and god knows who else under the bus in place of Favre. If it weren't for Peterson and his 3 TD's the game wouldn't have even gone to overtime, and that's before we even remember Peterson never even turned the ball over in the game.

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You've changed your tune quickly. It's either a team game or it isn't. The QB gets the blame just like a lot of the time he unfairly gets the credit, it's the nature of the position. I find it amazing everyone ready to jump to Favre defence and claim it's a team game and it's not his fault while throwing Peterson, the HC and god knows who else under the bus in place of Favre. If it weren't for Peterson and his 3 TD's the game wouldn't have even gone to overtime, and that's before we even remember Peterson never even turned the ball over in the game.

In the same boat of you and others throwing Favre under the bus.

And are you seriously trying to Defend 3 fumbles? Yes I say 3 because the one Favre is credited for was also Peterson's fault. So that classes as a turnover on him not Favre in my book and anyone with common sense and knowledge of the game. That was his first. His second lost them 10 yards and Brett Favre got them down to the Goal line where Peterson punched it in for 1yd for a TD hardly prolific running. other TDs were a 2 yard run and a 19yard run. Hardly on top of his game. On the short yard ones Taylor would have done the same thing.

Who lost the game for the Vikings? I will tell you: ALL OF THEM, Favre 2 turnovers, Peterson's bad running and drop, Harvins drop, Berrians Drop and Childress for bad play calling at times. And the Defense played well at times and sucked at other times.

But to blame it on Brett Favre solely when in fact his last Int didn't lose the game for them is madness.

Pherekydes

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You've changed your tune quickly. It's either a team game or it isn't.

Not at all. Everyone knows it's a team game. And there are 3 teams: Offence, defence and STs. The Defensive team lost the Packers that game against the Eagles. 4th and 26. pffft.

Peterson gets undue credit for the scores (as do a lot of RBs who punch the ball in from 1 yard). He gets little blame despite his fumbleitis. And he had two turnovers. He lost 1 in the official game stats and the handoff fumble was his fault too, even though the official stats credit it to your favourite #4.

Chucky the tree

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

In the same boat of you and others throwing Favre under the bus.

And are you seriously trying to Defend 3 fumbles? Yes I say 3 because the one Favre is credited for was also Peterson's fault. So that classes as a turnover on him not Favre in my book and anyone with common sense and knowledge of the game. That was his first. His second lost them 10 yards and Brett Favre got them down to the Goal line where Peterson punched it in for 1yd for a TD hardly prolific running. other TDs were a 2 yard run and a 19yard run. Hardly on top of his game. On the short yard ones Taylor would have done the same thing.

Who lost the game for the Vikings? I will tell you: ALL OF THEM, Favre 2 turnovers, Peterson's bad running and drop, Harvins drop, Berrians Drop and Childress for bad play calling at times. And the Defense played well at times and sucked at other times.

But to blame it on Brett Favre solely when in fact his last Int didn't lose the game for them is madness.

So the rule makes don't have common sense or knowledge of the game? Interesting. yep, lets just ignore the other 100 odd yards Peterson rushed for. Again you claim it's a team game and then come out with "Favre got them down to the goal line" completely ignoring the amazing catch by schanko(sp?). Just to point out I never once said it's Favres fault they lost, I just said he throw a stupid int when he didn't need to and it's not the first time he's done that in the play-offs at a crucial time.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Not at all. Everyone knows it's a team game. And there are 3 teams: Offence, defence and STs. The Defensive team lost the Packers that game against the Eagles. 4th and 26. pffft.

Peterson gets undue credit for the scores (as do a lot of RBs who punch the ball in from 1 yard). He gets little blame despite his fumbleitis. And he had two turnovers. He lost 1 in the official game stats and the handoff fumble was his fault too, even though the official stats credit it to your favourite #4.

So then you think it was the offense that's lead by my favourite #4 that lost the game to the Saints?

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So the rule makes don't have common sense or knowledge of the game?

What are you babbling on about? The Fumble was acredited to Favre because the ball never got in to the hands of Peterson so by default the "rule makers" as you call it have to credit Favre with the Fumble. That still doesn't take away from the FACT it was Peterson's fault. I can't believe you would try use that as an argument. Pathetic really and you are clearly reaching at this point. And you missed my point when I say bad running with Peterson so I will leave it there because at this point you are all over the shop trying to defend your own comments. :rolleyes:

Chucky the tree

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

What are you babbling on about? The Fumble was acredited to Favre because the ball never got in to the hands of Peterson so by default the "rule makers" as you call it have to credit Favre with the Fumble. That still doesn't take away from the FACT it was Peterson's fault. I can't believe you would try use that as an argument. Pathetic really and you are clearly reaching at this point. And you missed my point when I say bad running with Peterson so I will leave it there because at this point you are all over the shop trying to defend your own comments. :rolleyes:

Exactly, Favre never got the ball to Peterson, he fumbled it. As Maurci said it takes two to make an exchange. I did miss the point, because I have no idea what was so bad about Peterson running. Was it his 3 TD's? His 122 yards and 4.4 yards per carry? Disgraceful from AP alright. I'm shocked the vikings haven't cut him yet.

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Exactly, Favre never got the ball to Peterson, he fumbled it. I did miss the point, because I have no idea what was so bad about Peterson running. Was it his 3 TD's? His 122 yards and 4.4 yards per carry? Disgraceful from AP alright. I'm shocked the vikings haven't cut him yet.

The ball got to Peterson and Peterson didn't have his arms open enough to receive it. Anyone who watches football and knows the game will tell you that was Peterson's fault. The commentators said it, The analysts said it, The reports said it and about everyone I know said it and a lot on here said it. You truly are reaching to bolster your argument. Just because they had to give it to Favre by Default it doesn't mean it was his fault. The hand off was perfect but Peterson's arms were positioned wrong. :rolleyes:

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm shocked the vikings haven't cut him yet.

Grow up already will you :rolleyes: We all know that isn't going to happen especially after one game. You are seriously tarnishing your credibility as a poster with the nonsense you are coming out with. You have gone from very strong poster to babbling on about nothing with sh1te like the above.:rolleyes: