today good defense wins

[skinsdad62]

just sickening watching the broncos play . awful tackling

they started out horrible with the safety and it went downhill from there

seatles defense simply dominating

 

[TCB]

They are mopping the floor with Denver

 

[j_y19]

Worst SB ever.

 

[Tdog21Skins]

Broncos was the offensive team facing a Seattle Seahawks rugged team, I guess we know that defensive teams wins Super Bowls

 

[Stymietee]

just sickening watching the broncos play . awful tackling

they started out horrible with the safety and it went downhill from there

seatles defense simply dominating

Easy to do when the only threat is an average QB.

 

[Sharkinva]

Easy to do when the only threat is an average QB.

If Manning is an average QB, then there are no above average QBs in the NFCEast.

 

[Stymietee]

If Manning is an average QB, then there are no above average QBs in the NFCEast.

I'll do you one better...... it's rare to see an above average QBs in the game today, in fact I cannot think of one.

 

[PDay8810]

I'll do you one better...... it's rare to see an above average QBs in the game today, in fact I cannot think of one.

I'm as old school as the next guy, but this is a shock value statement if I ever saw one.

I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It just seems your definition of average is outta whack regardless of your stance on the rule changes over the years.

 

[Stymietee]

I'm as old school as the next guy, but this is a shock value statement if I ever saw one.

I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It just seems your definition of average is outta whack regardless of your stance on the rule changes over the years.

I see with eyes that have an appreciation for records set when rule changes didn't aid in attaining them. I have no issue debating this point with you, however, I do ask you to look at the record that your out of whack "great" QB has when facing defenses that were allowed to play in a manner that was the norm in another era. I do agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and although you claim that my definition of average is out of whack, you then minimize the reason why. (rule changes)

 

[PDay8810]

call it an appreciation knowing there are professionals are on both sides of the field....then & now


debating this point? what? there are no average QB's playing football today?
that's not a debate as much as a shock value opinion which I clearly pointed out.

 

[skinsdad62]

manning is a top 5 all time qb . period . he would have done well in any era and one game (at age 37) wont change that

 

[Stymietee]

call it an appreciation knowing there are professionals are on both sides of the field....then & now


debating this point? what? there are no average QB's playing football today?
that's not a debate as much as a shock value opinion which I clearly pointed out.

I never said that there were no average QB's playing today....what I actually said was that there were no ABOVE AVERAGE QB's playing today. That point was made clear when I pointed out that relative to the rule changes players seem better than they actually are. No shock value intended, the facts bear me out. The so called greatest player of his time (for some of all time) fails when pitted against defenses similar to those common from another era. If the greatest fails what does this say about the lesser ones???

BTW: The ONLY reason that they are called professional then and now is because they are getting paid. This too, says nothing relative to their skill level....only that someone deemed them worthy of the contract offered. The clearest example that I can offer you is the QB on your team who happens to also be an average QB is being paid for his services. To be fair the same can be said for the QB on my team as well.

 

[Stymietee]

manning is a top 5 all time qb . period . he would have done well in any era and one game (at age 37) wont change that

OK I'll give you that..................IF..................you ONLY count the rule change era. Otherwise he's in the John Brodie, Jack Kemp, Bob Griese type category. They did well also.

 

[skinsdad62]

OK I'll give you that..................IF..................you ONLY count the rule change era. Otherwise he's in the John Brodie, Jack Kemp, Bob Griese type category.

please he would be a 4000 yd passer in any of those era's just look at his size , accuracy play calling ability , same with brady . and defense were no where near as sophisticated as they are today

 

[Stymietee]

please he would be a 4000 yd passer in any of those era's just look at his size , accuracy play calling ability , same with brady . and defense were no where near as sophisticated as they are today

He would last a quarter, then be forever injured. Probably would not last a season healthy retired early because the rules would allow defenses to get to him often. What you are doing is projecting him "as is" to that era and rule changes with him. None of that would have been there to protect him from the viciousness that these unsophisticated defenses would have inflicted upon him. Hell he got jittery, when Seattle got close to him............imagine how much less effective he would have been after being pounded on nearly all passing plays.

 

[Stymietee]

Oh one other point.....long before this game was played I wrote that stopping P. Manning was very easy to do. That taking away his options was the key. Always has been. Now that this has been borne out, I don't see why so many are still willing to stand in defense of footballs version of Wilt Chamberlain or Karl Malone.

 

[Sharkinva]

He would last a quarter, then be forever injured. Probably would not last a season healthy retired early because the rules would allow defenses to get to him often. What you are doing is projecting him "as is" to that era and rule changes with him. None of that would have been there to protect him from the viciousness that these unsophisticated defenses would have inflicted upon him. Hell he got jittery, when Seattle got close to him............imagine how much less effective he would have been after being pounded on nearly all passing plays.

Stymee, you act as if rules changes have not benefited the defense as well. Holding, leg whips and eye gouging of defensive players was a common occurrence in the time you speak of. And as they changed rules, it has benefited the defense just as much in some areas. Imagine what a guy like Bryant or Megatron could do if they were legally allowed to push defenders off again. Hell that move alone put Mike Irvin in the HOF. You put a guy like Manning or Brady into an era where his WR can make moves like that and his O-Line can basically tackle the defender as soon as the ball is hiked and I think he dominates.

 

[skinsdad62]

He would last a quarter, then be forever injured. Probably would not last a season healthy retired early because the rules would allow defenses to get to him often. What you are doing is projecting him "as is" to that era and rule changes with him. None of that would have been there to protect him from the viciousness that these unsophisticated defenses would have inflicted upon him. Hell he got jittery, when Seattle got close to him............imagine how much less effective he would have been after being pounded on nearly all passing plays.

getting rid of the ball in less then 2 seconds negates a lot of what you are talking about

his study habbits going against less complex defenses would be a huge advantage to him as is his size

you cant take away his mind which is what you want to do

if you sent a mike vick or Rg3 back in time they couldnt deal with the speed or arm strength of either just as they couldnt deal with mannings arm and accuracy

he would see what was coming long before it did in those era's

 

[Stymietee]

getting rid of the ball in less then 2 seconds negates a lot of what you are talking about

his study habbits going against less complex defenses would be a huge advantage to him as is his size

you cant take away his mind which is what you want to do

if you sent a mike vick or Rg3 back in time they couldnt deal with the speed or arm strength of either just as they couldnt deal with mannings arm and accuracy

he would see what was coming long before it did in those era's

How did that work out last night? .........and at any time he's faced a defense that took his dink and dunk game away. Does anybody remember his long game???......................... Wait a minute, you're just messing with me right, OK I get it!!!

 

[skinsdad62]

How did that work out last night? .........and at any time he's faced a defense that took his dink and dunk game away. Does anybody remember his long game???......................... Wait a minute, you're just messing with me right, OK I get it!!!

stymie manning wasnt always 37 . you take one game and apply it to a career . the eras you are talking about didnt have the complexity of defenses , or the physical talent the seahawks defense has . you didnt see the big tall fast secondary players back then . you might get one or 2 once in awhile

you cant seem to grasp that and dismiss the most important parts of mannings game and you still have the picture of the 37 year old and not the 26 year old who had all the things you need

you certainly didnt have the speed or size manning vs the bears or manning vs the saints would do damage in those eras