Closed Thread
Page 33 of 59 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 590

Thread: ESPN, Herm Edwards Diss Eli

  1. #321
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,843
    Quote Originally Posted by BuffyBlueII View Post
    You must mean the Hail Mary that Hakeem Nicks out jumped everyone for? That play was executed perfectly and pretty much broke Green Bay's back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66S8rN2ih1AThe defense was okay but nothing special. They gave up 17 points in 21 minutes in SuperBowl and were very lucky that NY Giants offense controlled TOP for 38 minutes.
    Lol. They gave up 17 points to a team that scored twice as much and that's not great? Lol. This is great. Oh, and that play should never have happened. Glad it did but that was horrible defense by Green Bay and lucky for the Giants.

  2. #322
    Buffy i made the comment about the 49ers as an example to support a main point. "Rodgers has averaged better numbers than eli in the playoffs and the packers defense has given up more points than the giants defense in the playoffs"

    Whats your counter argument for that?
    Don't take it personal, we're just debating.

    ~Big Mike~


  3. #323
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,110
    Quote Originally Posted by B&RWarrior View Post
    People are comparing AR's first 5 years with Brady and Peyton's first 5 years. In that comparison he has outperformed them. But he also had a much longer grooming process because of Favre. AR is the best in the game right now. Regardless of who has the most SBs if I were to start a team right now I'd pick AR over all active QB's.

    Your rule is bogus. C'mon dude 17% of anything is a significant enough amount to discredit any rule of thumb. Besides you left out McMahan and Flacco neither of which are great or very good, they are/ were above average. Although to be honest I thought Hostetler and Brad Johnson were both better than mediocre, but far from great.
    Including Namath--who is really in the HOF due to his iconic status in the NFL of the time and his team's SB surprising most "experts, certainly not because of his career stats--I count 9 QBs out of 47 SB winners, who would be considered by most to be mediocre-to-good QBs. Even allowing for the multiple winners, I think this would qualify as exceptions to the rule. You disagree. So be it.

    As for great-to-All Time-great QBs who never won a SB, there's Marino, Kelly, Moon, Fouts, Tarkenton, and.........? Out of how many starting QBs of the past 47 years--1000? more? Exceptions in my book.

    Personally, I liked Johnson because of his journeyman ability to improve somewhat the various teams he played on, and was happy for him to be in the Tampa Bay SB win. But I never thought of him as being on the same level as other SB QB greats (which you didn't claim otherwise, I'm just saying). Hoss was good enough to flourish in those 5 games he started to complete the Giants 90 season. And, like all Giants fans, I was thrilled that was the case. But he didn't exactly continue that achievement the following year for the Giants or the Raiders.

    Flacco is different from all the other "exceptions", in my mind. It's still early in his career. Like most non-Ravens fans, at least, I've not been wowed by Flacco up to now. However, He has led (along with Rice, and an up and down -- for the Ravens -- defense) his team to the post season and won at least 1 post season game every season he's been in the league. I believe that's an NFL record, and has to be given at least some credit. But he did step up his game a few notches this season, which was decent but not yet thrilling--until the post season. I was impressed with the next level he seemed to achieve throughout the last 4-5 games he played. His story is obviously still very incomplete, and while I don't yet place him in the same category as the other active QBs who've won SBs the last decade, he is on the rise. Remains to be seen what he does from now on. He does not deserve to be consigned to the Dilfer and McMahon category.

    Thing about Rodgers / Brady / Peyton comparisons, I've never seen a post comparing them that qualifies "their first 5 seasons", as you claim is the norm in these debates. And if you do make those comparisons, do you compare their respective first 5 years in the league, or their first 5 seasons as a starter?

    Either way you want to count it, Brady led his team to 3 SB victories his first 5 years in the league (first 4 as starter). And he accomplished that with virtually no-name receivers (certainly no Jennings-caliber WR), virtually no running game except for the 3rd SB. And he accomplished that feat in the era of salary cap. Different WR corps each year. First SB win with a team 5 years removed from a SB appearance, whereas Rodgers' first--and only-- SB appearance was with a team 3 years removed from the NFC Championship.

    So both Rodgers and Brady inherited teams that were already at "contender level" of readiness to take the next step. Peyton, of course, took over a pure crap team that was still searching for an identity that was lost by them 20 years before.

    Sure, it's easy to say you'd start a team with a QB who's years younger, started only 5 seasons vs 12 (or 15 seasons) of 2 other HOF-ready QBs, but that's an artificial assumption for quality comparison purposes.

    Take Rodgers. He's good. But after 5 seasons as starting QB--to make a sensible comparison--I'd still take Brady (followed by Peyton because he's the modern day gold standard of NFL QB) before Rodgers. And I don't have the man-crush on Brady that many here have on Rodgers. Just respect for the QB he is.

  4. #324
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Marvelousmik View Post
    Buffy i made the comment about the 49ers as an example to support a main point. "Rodgers has averaged better numbers than eli in the playoffs and the packers defense has given up more points than the giants defense in the playoffs"

    Whats your counter argument for that?
    Your main point is invalid and you know it. That is why you made the comment in regard to the 49ers. You also fail to bring up that perhaps the biggest play for Green Bay Packers in SuperBowl XLV was a defensive one. The strip on Mendenhall late in the game saved the game for them. Numbers and stats do not tell the entire story and you also know this. You also know that the tempo of the game has a lot to do with points scored, regardless of your defense. No matter how many times you want to claim it and how many times you quote stats, Eli Manning is a more successful post season QB than Aaron Rodgers is. There is no way around that for you.

    I already stated it and it is obvious. Playing against different teams with different personnel is going to cause different points scored, points given up, game planning, etc.........etc.......... In the game against Arizona for example, it was a stupid game plan. Green Bay's coaching staff should have known that Aaron Rodgers wasn't gonna win in a shoot out, in the playoffs against Kurt Warner. Our regular season finale against NE Patriots and SuperBowl XLII were two different types of games by us. The game planning had to be different. Our defense isn't going to stop NE Patriots offense in a fast tempo game and Eli Manning isn't going to win a shoot out against Tom Brady. So, we adjusted the game plan and our offense set the tone for the game from the beginning.

  5. #325
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Marvelousmik View Post
    Buffy i made the comment about the 49ers as an example to support a main point. "Rodgers has averaged better numbers than eli in the playoffs and the packers defense has given up more points than the giants defense in the playoffs" Whats your counter argument for that?
    As you also know, points scored and points given up are not the only standards that are used.

  6. #326
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy333 View Post
    If the Giants defense does not play the way they did in both Super Bowl games they do not win. It's that simple. Of course the same could be said about Eli. That's why it's a team sport.
    Yes, it's a team sport.

    It's a team sport when the Giants win. It's "Eli's inconsistency" when the Giants lose.

    It's a team sport when the Packers lose, and it's Rodgers' total awesomeness when the Packers win.

    Got it.

  7. #327
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy333 View Post
    Lol. They gave up 17 points to a team that scored twice as much and that's not great? Lol. This is great. Oh, and that play should never have happened. Glad it did but that was horrible defense by Green Bay and lucky for the Giants.
    The play was executed perfectly and it happened. Our defense gave up 17 points in 21 minutes and only gave up 17 points because our offense held the ball for 38 minutes. We are lucky Wes Welker panicked and didn't catch that pass on the blown coverage by our "lights out" defense.

  8. #328
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by gmen46 View Post
    Yes, it's a team sport.It's a team sport when the Giants win. It's "Eli's inconsistency" when the Giants lose.It's a team sport when the Packers lose, and it's Rodgers' total awesomeness when the Packers win.Got it.
    +1

  9. #329
    All-Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,843
    Quote Originally Posted by gmen46 View Post
    Yes, it's a team sport.It's a team sport when the Giants win. It's "Eli's inconsistency" when the Giants lose.It's a team sport when the Packers lose, and it's Rodgers' total awesomeness when the Packers win.Got it.
    No, not true at all. Rodgers did not have a bad game that day. Ay be not his best of the season, and the defense had a huge part to play in that, but not a horrible game. He threw for 260 yards and ran for 60. He was the only chance they had that day of winning. What specifically did he do to lose the game? Did he have an interception at he end if a tight game? Did he manage the clock poorly? People are making it like he was so of target. Yeah, he had a couple of throws he would have liked to have back, but he also had some perfectly thrown passes dropped. It happens.

  10. #330
    All-Pro Rudyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Waffles > Pancakes
    Posts
    34,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy333 View Post
    No, not true at all. Rodgers did not have a bad game that day. Ay be not his best of the season, and the defense had a huge part to play in that, but not a horrible game. He threw for 260 yards and ran for 60. He was the only chance they had that day of winning. What specifically did he do to lose the game? Did he have an interception at he end if a tight game? Did he manage the clock poorly? People are making it like he was so of target. Yeah, he had a couple of throws he would have liked to have back, but he also had some perfectly thrown passes dropped. It happens.
    He did have an interception at the end of that game actually.

    Please support.
    Get well soon #80.

Closed Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts