NFC Championship game: VIKINGS vs SAINTS

Chucky the tree

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

How fast do you think Favre is? That defender closest to him would have closed him down short of 5 yards. And if you notice the video when he planted his feet after rolling out he scanned left to right which is what all QBs are thought to do obviously in the couple of seconds he thought he only had he never looked right and as he scanned through the middle thought he saw someone open.

Sure its his fault for the Int but he should never have been put in that situation. But you have to factor in the pressure of the situation, the timing and what Brett Favre actually saw on the field. It is so easy to sit back and say Favre is useless and the loss was all his fault.

I never said the lose is all his fault. However when you look at farve's career most the crunch play-off games he's lost come off the back of ridiculous interceptions/performances he's had, when the pressure is on he buckles.

Here's the video of last night. the view from behind is much better and starts at 50 seconds. He has no problem moving very quickly to the 40 yard line, then he stops to throw it if he simply kept running he would have easily made it to the 35 imo. When he sets up to throw it the defender on the 32 yard line is wrong footed and is not even moving forward. At 52 seconds in the defender is even moving a move away from Favre to cover the Vikings player, a punk fake there would have all he needed to give a bit more time to make it to the 35 and possibly further.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whk0VTuMAdU

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I never said the lose is all his fault. However when you look at farve's career most the crunch play-off games he's lost come off the back of ridiculous interceptions/performances he's had, when the pressure is on he buckles.

Here's the video of last night. the view from behind is much better and starts at 50 seconds. He has no problem moving very quickly to the 40 yard line, then he stops to throw it if he simply kept running he would have easily made it to the 35 imo. When he sets up to throw it the defender on the 32 yard line is wrong footed and is not even moving forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whk0VTuMAdU

You are looking at the wrong Defensive player. Im not talking about the stationary guy. Im talking about the guy coming from his left who is looking at him and going towards him.

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I never said the lose is all his fault. However when you look at farve's career most the crunch play-off games he's lost come off the back of ridiculous interceptions/performances he's had, when the pressure is on he buckles.

Here's the video of last night. the view from behind is much better and starts at 50 seconds. He has no problem moving very quickly to the 40 yard line, then he stops to throw it if he simply kept running he would have easily made it to the 35 imo. When he sets up to throw it the defender on the 32 yard line is wrong footed and is not even moving forward. At 52 seconds in the defender is even moving a move away from Favre to cover the Vikings player, a punk fake there would have all he needed to give a bit more time to make it to the 35 and possibly further.

Definitely talking about a different defensive player but a Pump Fake is not always 100% successful. The simple fact the Player to hi left keyed in on him and only took his foot off the gas when Favre released it.

Chucky the tree

The D player coming across is 5+ yards away and favre had no major problem rolling out and running it seemed, I still he would have made it. Another thing we're going to have to agree to disagree with I think!

tallaghtoutlaws

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The D player coming across is 5+ yards away and favre had no major problem rolling out and running it seemed, I still he would have made it. Another thing we're going to have to agree to disagree with I think!

Thats a mighty small 5 yards. 5 yards would be from Favre to that blue line. He is less than 5 yards away from Favre in this picture. And with the fact he is already moving he would have caught Favre.

Favre was always going to stop as he was going to try the designed play first. He is not known for his scrambling abilities. So had he scrambled it would have been after he planted his feet to line up the throw. In that time that defender on his left would have caught him. 3 yards away at most he is.

RichTea

Russian Roulette with a gun

I think Favre would have made enough yards for the FG. Hell, even he thinks he should have run it now. At the time, however, Favre is looking to give his team the best shot at a game winning field goal. Favre forces passes, always has done, sometimes they'll come off and sometimes they fail miserably. It's part of his mystique as a player. He played tough throughout, he threw some passes last night that he really shouldn't have but that's him.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/images/01/25/FavreINT.mp3

Check out that Vikings radio call of the interception. Ouch! :pac:

Chucky the tree

Stop the youtube video at 52 seconds. that looks at least 5 yards to me. Even at 51 seconds if Farve decide to put his head down and run he would have made it.

eagle eye

Russian Roulette with a gun

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.

Chucky the tree

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.

He shows zero problem of rolling out in the video. If he ran for it he would have made it to the 35yard line at least. I'd argue brady manning, and Rivers wouldn't have been stupid to make the throw and would have just ran and gave his kicker a 51yard kick or so. When he throw's it across the pitch he should realise that the chances of it being reutrned for a int or close enough for saints to try a FG is a lot higher. Don't you always use Manning post-season record to argue Manning shouldn't be considered better then Brady? The number of ints are awful, the throws he makes in crucial games that becomes Ints are. Only QB ever to throw two ints in a play-off in OT.

cooker3

I think people are way too obsessed with the Favre incident.
Look at the results, if he had run then it would have left a 50-55 yard field goal. It's not exactly a high probability kick. There is also a % chance he completes that pass. New Orleans gained nothing from the throw, it just stopped the Vikings. It's a mistake, yes, but overall there were far worse mistakes made throughout the match by Peterson, Harvin, Childress and Berrian.

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.