LOL @ Tiki Barber

[iowajerms]

Tiki Barber believes Eli Manning of New York Giants better than Peyton Manning of Denver Broncos - ESPN New York

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

2>1

 

[iowajerms]

2>1

So, is Roethlisberger > Peyton?

or Roethlisberger > Rodgers

It's the same logic.

 

[cdumler7]

Quarterbacks get way too much credit or disrespect for how many Superbowls they have. Would anybody on here rather have Trent Dilfer over Dan Marino? Football is the ultimate team sport. Yes the quarterback has the most influence in how a game turns out but a quarterback cannot truly be blamed or praised on Superbowl victories alone.

 

[elocomotive]

Quarterbacks get way too much credit or disrespect for how many Superbowls they have. Would anybody on here rather have Trent Dilfer over Dan Marino? Football is the ultimate team sport. Yes the quarterback has the most influence in how a game turns out but a quarterback cannot truly be blamed or praised on Superbowl victories alone.

Well said.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

Quarterbacks get way too much credit or disrespect for how many Superbowls they have. Would anybody on here rather have Trent Dilfer over Dan Marino? Football is the ultimate team sport. Yes the quarterback has the most influence in how a game turns out but a quarterback cannot truly be blamed or praised on Superbowl victories alone.

yes, i'll take Dilfer over Marino, and football being a team sport is why. Marino to me was one of the most selfish QB's and wasn't a good team player, Dilfer was and that is why Dilfer has a ring and Marino doesn't.

But that's my opinion, because to me the intangibles are just as important as the natural talent. Marino had all the talent in the world but he could get out of his own way. It's a shame to see that much talent go to waste because he is a head case.

 

[RonBorges]

Well said.

Well said, but inaccurate. If Football were the ultimate team sport, more NFL teams would win Superbowls with average NFL quarterbacks.

Having a top 10 (top 5?) NFL Quarterback is table stakes for winning a Superbowl.

 

[RonBorges]

yes, i'll take Dilfer over Marino, and football being a team sport is why. Marino to me was one of the most selfish QB's and wasn't a good team player, Dilfer was and that is why Dilfer has a ring and Marino doesn't.

But that's my opinion, because to me the intangibles are just as important as the natural talent. Marino had all the talent in the world but he could get out of his own way. It's a shame to see that much talent go to waste because he is a head case.

Spot on Analysis

 

[cdumler7]

Well said, but inaccurate. If Football were the ultimate team sport, more NFL teams would win Superbowls with average NFL quarterbacks.

Having a top 10 (top 5?) NFL Quarterback is table stakes for winning a Superbowl.

I can agree up to a certain point. Yes having a top tier quarterback makes a huge difference as they are the most influential player on the field throughout any game. There is reason of why quarterbacks do get so much blame or praise for Superbowl wins. Having said that the team around the quarterback matters just as much. If the quarterback was the only one that mattered then Aaron Rodgers should have won the Superbowl pretty much the last 3-4 years. Most would agree he is the most talented quarterback in the NFL yet at least up to this point it has only produced one NFL Championship. You need to have a good quarterback (unless you have an all-time great defense like Trent Dilfer did) to win the Superbowl but you need to have talent around that quarterback as well. Then I would say a little bit of luck/timing plays into it as well. I mean look at Eli Manning and the ultimate catch on the helmet play. How often does that happen? Not very.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

I can agree up to a certain point. Yes having a top tier quarterback makes a huge difference as they are the most influential player on the field throughout any game. There is reason of why quarterbacks do get so much blame or praise for Superbowl wins. Having said that the team around the quarterback matters just as much. If the quarterback was the only one that mattered then Aaron Rodgers should have won the Superbowl pretty much the last 3-4 years. Most would agree he is the most talented quarterback in the NFL yet at least up to this point it has only produced one NFL Championship. You need to have a good quarterback (unless you have an all-time great defense like Trent Dilfer did) to win the Superbowl but you need to have talent around that quarterback as well. Then I would say a little bit of luck/timing plays into it as well. I mean look at Eli Manning and the ultimate catch on the helmet play. How often does that happen? Not very.

i disagree, every SB winning team has at least one play in their run where luck helped out big time. In the Eli example it was that catch for the Ravens last year it was the bomb to Jones, where that the Denver player miss played the ball. Those lucky plays happen every year for the SB winning team at some point during their run.

 

[cdumler7]

i disagree, every SB winning team has at least one play in their run where luck helped out big time. In the Eli example it was that catch for the Ravens last year it was the bomb to Jones, where that the Denver player miss played the ball. Those lucky plays happen every year for the SB winning team at some point during their run.

Not sure what you are disagreeing with me on here. I said that in order to win a Superbowl a team has to have a good quarterback, some good players around that quarterback, and I finally said that you need a little bit of Luck/Timing in order to win a Superbowl. So again not sure where you are disagreeing with me on this.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

Not sure what you are disagreeing with me on here. I said that in order to win a Superbowl a team has to have a good quarterback, some good players around that quarterback, and I finally said that you need a little bit of Luck/Timing in order to win a Superbowl. So again not sure where you are disagreeing with me on this.

the "not very often" part at the end....it happens very often like every year. not that type of catch but a lucky play like that.

 

[cdumler7]

the "not very often" part at the end....it happens very often like every year. not that type of catch but a lucky play like that.

How is that not an example of a team needing a little bit of luck to win a Superbowl? I was giving an example of a team having one of those defining moments that help them win a Superbowl that in most games would never have actually happened. Just like you talked about with the deep 70 yard bomb to Jones against the Broncos. Those kind of plays don't happen very often. Most Superbowl winning teams at some point in the playoffs though do seem to have one of those plays fall their way.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

How is that not an example of a team needing a little bit of luck to win a Superbowl? I was giving an example of a team having one of those defining moments that help them win a Superbowl that in most games would never have actually happened. Just like you talked about with the deep 70 yard bomb to Jones against the Broncos. Those kind of plays don't happen very often. Most Superbowl winning teams at some point in the playoffs though do seem to have one of those plays fall their way.

Why do you keep saying, "Those kind of plays don't happen very often."?

Does "those kind of plays" = lucky breaks?

 

[cdumler7]

Why do you keep saying, "Those kind of plays don't happen very often."?

Does "those kind of plays" = lucky breaks?

What I mean by "those kind of plays" is those that a team cannot usually count on to win a game. The Giants could be in that same situation another 20 times or more and Eli Manning does not either get that pass off or it is not caught. The Ravens could be down by 7 with 70 yards to go another 20 straight games like they were to the Broncos and not even come close to scoring a touchdown. They are some lucky breaks and both of us have agreed a team needs 1 or 2 of those to win a Superbowl.

 

[RonBorges]

I will agree to a point. The marquis QB gets you to playoffs and gives you a chance to win, but if you are not dominant on one side of the ball, you can't win it all.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

What I mean by "those kind of plays" is those that a team cannot usually count on to win a game. The Giants could be in that same situation another 20 times or more and Eli Manning does not either get that pass off or it is not caught. The Ravens could be down by 7 with 70 yards to go another 20 straight games like they were to the Broncos and not even come close to scoring a touchdown. They are some lucky breaks and both of us have agreed a team needs 1 or 2 of those to win a Superbowl.

Like lucky breaks...IMO

 

[cdumler7]

Like lucky breaks...IMO

We are saying the exact same thing. Not really sure why this is so hard to grasp. Do I just need to call it exactly what you are for you to understand we are saying the same thing? Teams usually need "Lucky Breaks" in the playoffs to win the Superbowl.

 

[fearthepelicans]

2>1

Reggie Bush > Barry Sanders

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

Reggie Bush > Barry Sanders

huh? Reggie Bush won a SB as a starting RB?