NFL 2005 Season Thread

[Gonzo]

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, Jim McMahon?, All have rings. All had a great defense.

I still don't agree that just because these QB's had great D's makes them any less of a player. It is the NFL and although I wouldn't know, I'm sure its no easy task to play QB.

Managing the offense is pretty hard, not making mistakes and all that. I'm not saying any of these guys were the most prolific passers to play the game, but they aren't slouches.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

When the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl, Brad Johnson went to the Pro Bowl.

Thank

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by Rectal Pertruder Tom Brady

Knew you would say that... I'd give you a bunch of facts why you're wrong, but why bother.

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by Gonzo I still don't agree that just because these QB's had great D's makes them any less of a player. It is the NFL and although I wouldn't know, I'm sure its no easy task to play QB. Managing the offense is pretty hard, not making mistakes and all that. I'm not saying any of these guys were the most prolific passers to play the game, but they aren't slouches.

I agree 100%, all the QB's listed played good games and had to do things that helped their team win. I was just listing "1 shot wonders" so to speak.

[RP]

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives Knew you would say that... I'd give you a bunch of facts why you're wrong, but why bother.

Yah, not like i care.

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by AssMan Bethel Johnson has a superbowl ring. I don't think he deserves it.

Terry Glenn won one... not sure if they actually gave it to him or he took it, since he was suspended at the time.

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by Rectal Pertruder Yah, not like i care.

Just cause I happened to come accross this yesterday while looking for something else.

It's from january, it's a back in forth between a write from a web-site and write of a news paper.

The short version is, the news paper guy argues that Manning is much better because Brady has never been considered for league MVP, the web-site guy counters that manning would trade his MVP's (I can't recall off hand how many he has? 2?) for one superbowl ring.

I find it interesting, because while I've seen Brady as a good and clutch QB, I didn't realise until earlier this year just how "clutch" he was and where his QB raiting ranked alltime and that he was actually ahead of Manning for a bit.

anyway, here's a link. But I know you hate facts

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...144&Category=5

[Mr. Monday Morning]

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives Umm, No. DL = Defensive Line. Stick to kickball.

Yeah thanks for the condescending remarks there. Totally necessary.

You seem to forget Ian Gold is back in the linebackers this year, and playing well. And the rookie DBs they drafted are good enough that they cut Lenny Walls.

Stick to arguing with RP, you're vaguely good at that.

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by Mr. Monday Morning Yeah thanks for the condescending remarks there. Totally necessary. You seem to forget Ian Gold is back in the linebackers this year, and playing well. And the rookie DBs they drafted are good enough that they cut Lenny Walls. Stick to arguing with RP, you're vaguely good at that.

Wait, you tried correcting me on what I said and when I give you back a little rib, you get pissy?

I'd say something, but I don't want you going all Emo on me.

[Mr. Monday Morning]

Way to address the points I made there.

[Mr. Monday Morning]

Owens' suspension has been upheld

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by Mr. Monday Morning Way to address the points I made there.

Sorry, I was distracted by you being all Emo.

I said something, your corrected me thinking I ment something else, or just prefering your opinion over mine and simply, you were wrong I meant what I said.

So, besies that what point did I miss? I never said they didn't improve their D, plain and simple which doesn't mean they didn't improve their DL, which doesn't mean when I said "they improved their DL" that I didn't mean what I said.

Anything else I can help you with?

[Mr. Monday Morning]

See this is the funny thing about the internet, you can throw around a word like emo and think you're making me cry or something when it just makes you look pretty stupid for getting anywhere near that assumption. All I said was it was pretty unnecessary to resort to a 'rib' as you want to classify it instead of actually addressing what I'd said. It's no wonder you have a rep for resorting to name-calling.

When I said they improved their D you said, and I'll quote here to make sure you understand this part

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives Umm, No.

In case you forgot, saying no would indicate a disagreement with me saying they improved their D as a whole, and not just the DL, which is what you stated. You can pretend you addressed that but you actually haven't. If you indeed "meant what you said" it also means you specifically think that only their DL has improved - by definition that means you think the rest of the D hasn't improved.

You can also help me with trying to understand how using 5 negative auxiliary verbs in one sentance is meant to be readable.

[RP]

"Clearly, you just don't get it. The whole purpose of pro football is to win a title. That's why they play. They don't play for a warm dinner roll and some gravy. Plus, you've still never explained Manning's Marino-esque 54.6 passer rating in four playoff losses or come up with a reason why Brady has a better passer rating at the same point in his career."

Regular Season :

Brady's passer rating is 88.7
Mannings passer rating is 93.2


"We don't report stats....we report facts. Bottom line: if you can do one thing, please explain to us Manning's 54.6 passer rating in four postseason losses."

Yes well i report facts also. I find it ammuzing that we take a QB who was fortunate to be on a 3 superbowl title winning team. A QB that has never suffered a post season loss and we compare him to a QB who had 5 losses in the playoffs. 4 of them on the road against teams that were flat out better then the Colts. Yet Cold Hard Facts would like to paint Peyton Manning as nothing more then a Choke Artist and Tom Brady as a superior god dressed in a Patriots uniform. Doing this by only giving you the Cold Hard facts that back up there " Cold Hard Facts ".

What VEL and Cold Hard Facts dont give you is career playoff stats. If they did then this is what you would find.

Tom Brady : http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/playerS...seasonStatus=5

Peyton Manning : http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/playerS...seasonStatus=5

Tom Brady stats arent exactly better then Peyton Mannings stats in the post season. Infact with these acception of Brady having a 2% more completion percentage and 5 less interceptions. Manning is better then Brady in every other stats. Even down to rushing. His passer rating is even better despite the +5 interceptions he's giving up to Tom Brady.

Clearly if we are arguing who the better QB is. The stats dont lie. Manning surely does not have the glory of being a Superbowl champion ( yet ), but is that because Tom Brady is a better QB? I dont think so. I think its because Tom Brady is a product of a great system instilled in New England.

He is not a better QB. Not in the regular season or the post season. He's just been on the better team. The stats dont lie.

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by Mr. Monday Morning See this is the funny thing about the internet, you can throw around a word like emo and think you're making me cry or something when it just makes you look pretty stupid for getting anywhere near that assumption. All I said was it was pretty unnecessary to resort to a 'rib' as you want to classify it instead of actually addressing what I'd said. It's no wonder you have a rep for resorting to name-calling. When I said they improved their D you said, and I'll quote here to make sure you understand this part In case you forgot, saying no would indicate a disagreement with me saying they improved their D as a whole, and not just the DL, which is what you stated. You can pretend you addressed that but you actually haven't. If you indeed "meant what you said" it also means you specifically think that only their DL has improved - by definition that means you think the rest of the D hasn't improved. You can also help me with trying to understand how using 5 negative auxiliary verbs in one sentance is meant to be readable.

You quoted something I said, CHANGED IT to make it look like I said something I didn't and then you said "fixed".

I responded "umm, no" meaning, "no" it's not "fixed" what I said was correct.

I can't believe you're still going on about this, and you wonder why I called you Emo. I don't think I'm making you cry, I'm not trying to make you cry, I could care less if you cry, but the simple fact is, you are crying and there was nothing their for me to respond to.

ugh, hopefully you're over this, cause I'm done wasting time with you on it.

Want to discuss football fine, want to cry because I said "stick to kick ball" after you changed my quote to make it look like I said something I didn't and then say "fixed", then talk to someone else.

[VonErich Lives]

RP - not ignoring you're response, just to tired to focus on it and read the stats and want to make sure I read it before I respond.

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by Rectal Pertruder "Clearly, you just don't get it. The whole purpose of pro football is to win a title. That's why they play. They don't play for a warm dinner roll and some gravy. Plus, you've still never explained Manning's Marino-esque 54.6 passer rating in four playoff losses or come up with a reason why Brady has a better passer rating at the same point in his career." Regular Season : Brady's passer rating is 88.7 Mannings passer rating is 93.2

I got this far, and just wanted your source on the passer ratings.

Reason being, it says "better passer rating at the same point in his career".
meaning if Brady has been in the league 4 years and Manning 6, then you need to look at Mannings passer rating 2yrs ago. "same point in career".

[DrA]

Originally Posted by Rectal Pertruder I think its because Tom Brady is a product of a great system instilled in New England. He is not a better QB. Not in the regular season or the post season. He's just been on the better team. The stats dont lie.

The last time I looked, I didn't see a "system" guide all of those passes to Brady's receivers.

Come on. They were saying the same stuff about Troy Hambrick and "the system" when he replaced Emmit Smith and did well for a couple of games. The fact of the matter is that if you're a good player, you're a good player.

[RP]

My opinion ( Dra ) is that Peyton Manning is a better QB then Tom Brady and my stats back this up. Tom Brady has simply been in a much better situation then Manning the past 5 years.

Arguments are welcome.

[Skippord]

Originally Posted by Gonzo I'm pretty sure Denver's DLine consists of 3 former Browns players and one other guy. When they played the Giants they commented on how well their defensive line play has been. Coaching makes a world of difference.

Trevor Pryce kicks the ass when he is healthy

[AlphaBean]

Originally Posted by Gonzo So because a guy doesn't line up as the starting MLB or doesn't catch 85 balls in a season means he hasn't practiced, studied film, helped the team prepare for each Sunday's game? Just because he isn't listed as #1 on the depth chart at his position means he doesn't deserve a ring? If you're saying that just because a player's contributions to a team isn't a lot, I'd like to know what those players do to not deserve the ring? The reason Larry Izzo has a ring is because he was part of great Superbowl teams. Do you think his contributions on special teams didn't matter? Just because he doesn't start at linebacker and make 120 tackles a year but makes 25 special teams tackles instead means he doesn't deserve a ring? I don't see what you're getting at with this question other than the fact you think Marino should have a ring while other guys who have one maybe aren't "worthy" of it? Marino should have won a ring, but no more than any other player that works hard, irregardless of the role they play. Pretty stupid to say that just because a guy doesn't contribute as much as someone else means they aren't deserving of one.

You don't believe your own bullshit, do you? Izzo was a poor example, because he is a Special Teams GOD! And if he was a better player he'd be no doubt starting at linebacker... and if he was faster, he would be a safety. Stronger, he'd be a DL... and if he could punt, well...

But here's the deal: Your mom could help a team study film. A backup safety who doesn't play could be replaced with Pepsi Machine and have the same impact on a team. I know that you know this. There are players on every team who mean nothing to their team, such as QBs beneath the clipboard holder, WRs on kickoff teams and the like. If you can run above a 4.6 40, you can be a special teams player. And while sure, they help the team in some gay, miniscule way... they are riding the coattails of a great team and a great coach. They do not deserve their ring.

[AlphaBean]

Originally Posted by Supreme When the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl, Brad Johnson went to the Pro Bowl. Thank

When your defense is amazing, your offensive stats will be so much better. And when your team wins a lot, many players make the Pro Bowl by default. The Cardinals generally only have a kicker or a punter make the pro bowl. The Patriots get like a dozen every year.

There we go.

[DrA]

Originally Posted by Rectal Pertruder My opinion ( Dra ) is that Peyton Manning is a better QB then Tom Brady and my stats back this up. Tom Brady has simply been in a much better situation then Manning the past 5 years. Arguments are welcome.

Peyton Manning has better statistics than Bart Starr, but does that necessarily make him the better quarterback?

I'm not saying that Brady is better than Manning or if Manning is better than Brady, but with statistics you could probably find ways to compare Aaron Brooks and Brett Favre. The last time I checked, football was a team sport, not a contest to see which individual puts up better numbers.

[DrA]

BUT SINCE YOU LIKE STATISTICS SO MUCH

You know what I found out?

During Tom Brady's tenure in New England, they have passed 55% of the time and ran it 45%.

Indianapolis, during Manning's time there, has thrown it 56% of the time.

Denver, when John Elway was there, threw it 52% of the time.

Now what does this mean? Absolutely nothing, really. But you say that Tom Brady is just part of the system, well, it seems to be a system that uses him quite a bit to get the ball around, more so than most other teams. Of course, this disregards how good their defenses were, the score of the games, the health of the quarterback etc. But since you like to be vague with statistics, I can do the same as well.

The truth is that there is no real way to prove which quarterback is better, since it is all in the opinion of the person in question.

[RP]

Listen i can care less , but if VEL wants to post shit like this , i'm gunnna set the record straight. If i dont say anything back, he assumes he's right when he's not.

Originally Posted by VonErich Lives Just cause I happened to come accross this yesterday while looking for something else. It's from january, it's a back in forth between a write from a web-site and write of a news paper. The short version is, the news paper guy argues that Manning is much better because Brady has never been considered for league MVP, the web-site guy counters that manning would trade his MVP's (I can't recall off hand how many he has? 2?) for one superbowl ring. I find it interesting, because while I've seen Brady as a good and clutch QB, I didn't realise until earlier this year just how "clutch" he was and where his QB raiting ranked alltime and that he was actually ahead of Manning for a bit. anyway, here's a link. But I know you hate facts http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...144&Category=5

[AlphaBean]

Well to be fair to that % of passing plays, the Patriots have only had a running game once since Curtis Martin left, and that was last year. So they're forced to pass short to set up the long pass; so that means that the actual "passing" plays, as opposed to the dump-off plays, are a lot less frequent than in Indy.

That being said, Brady will never have Manning's stats because Brady isn't asked to, and Manning will never have Brady's rings because Manning doesn't have the ungodly gameplans that they had in New England the last 4 years.

But, if the roles were reversed? Especially considering how controlled Manning is playing this year "comparatively," he could lead a Superbowl team, IMO (unless they had an elite defense like the Pats last season), and from what I recall, Brady passed his ass off in 2002 when they missed the playoffs by a game. He had absurd passing stats, but no ring. Makes you think.

[RP]

Change of subject.


I voted on the pro bowl today . These were my votes.

AFC QB's (3 )

Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Carson Palmer
( i was gunna vote Brees over Brady, but considering the injuries in New England i felt Brady deserved it more. )

NFC QB's ( 3 )

Matt Hassleback
Brett Farve
Eli Manning

AFC RB's ( 3 )

Edge
L.T ( No brainers )
Mike Anderson ( I could have picked Jordan or maybe Larry Johnson, but i think Mike Anderson doesnt get talked about enough so i chose him )

NFC RB's ( 3 )

Shaun Alexander
Tiki Barber
Thomas Jones ( again not going with the obvious on the 3rd pick. I Thomas Jones is a huge part of the Bears contending. )

AFC WR's ( 4 )

Chad Johnson
Marvin Harrison
Randy Moss
Reggie Wayne

NFC WR's ( 4 )

Steve Smith
Plaxico Burress
Larry Fitzgerald
Joey Galloway

AFC FB

Lorenzo Neal


NFC FB

C Cooley

AFC TE's ( 2 )

Heath Miller
Antonia Gates

NFC TE's ( 2 )

J.SHockey
Alge Crumpler

[Gonzo]

I don't know if I would put Eli on that list. I don't really pay attention to any other players #'s so I can't say who should get voted in or not.

[The Miz]

lol Favre?

[The Miz]

My votes

AFC
Manning
Palmer
Plummer

RB
Tomlinson
James
Jordan

WR
C. Johnson
Harrison
Branch
R. Moss

FB
Kreider

TE
Gates
Miller

K
Lindell

P
Lechler

NFC
QB
Manning
Delhomme
Hasselbeck

RB
Alexander
Davis
Barber

WR
Smith
Galloway
Burress
S. Moss

FB
MACK STRONG

TE
Shockey
Witten

K
Rackers

P
Kluwe

I'll do OL/defense later

[AlphaBean]

ROFL the NFC is going to get DESTROYED if that's how it pans out this year.

[The Miz]

Actually nah Hasselbeck is a woman

[AlphaBean]

Though at least we will have an awesome punter.

And Free Safety. Sharper

[RP]

lol Delholme

[RoXer]

I don't like VEL

[RP]

Originally Posted by Joey RoXer I don't like VEL

But why?

[RoXer]

I dunno. I probly have to provide stats or something. Or he'll quote my post and delete "don't" and he'll say "fixed" and then we'll get into this huge argument over what I actually meant even though it's fucking simple and no big deal.

[RP]

[VonErich Lives]

Originally Posted by AlphaBean Well to be fair to that % of passing plays, the Patriots have only had a running game once since Curtis Martin left, and that was last year.

2001 Antowain Smith 287 1157 4.0
2002 Antowain Smith 252 982 3.9
2003 Antowain Smith 182 642 3.5
2003 Kevin Faulk 178 638 3.6
2003 Combined 360 1280 3.5

I wouldn't say they didn't have a running game those years, especially 2001. You could make a case for 2003, but some of that "split time" came from injuries, so it could be argued if Smith stayed healthy he might have put up close to the combined stats himself.

Although, if I remember correctly, Smith didn't play most of the first half that year, and people felt Belicheck did it on purpose to keep him well rested for the 2nd half and the playoffs. So, in the playoffs when everyone else had gone through 16-17 games, Smith had only played 8.

[VonErich Lives]

Ok, RP... where to begin.

First as I already asked.

Originally Posted by Rectal Pertruder "Clearly, you just don't get it. The whole purpose of pro football is to win a title. That's why they play. They don't play for a warm dinner roll and some gravy. Plus, you've still never explained Manning's Marino-esque 54.6 passer rating in four playoff losses or come up with a reason why Brady has a better passer rating at the same point in his career." Regular Season : Brady's passer rating is 88.7 Mannings passer rating is 93.2

I got this far, and just wanted your source on the passer ratings.

Reason being, it says "better passer rating at the same point in his career".
meaning if Brady has been in the league 4 years and Manning 6, then you need to look at Mannings passer rating 2yrs ago. "same point in career".

Originally Posted by Rectal Pertruder "We don't report stats....we report facts. Bottom line: if you can do one thing, please explain to us Manning's 54.6 passer rating in four postseason losses." Yes well i report facts also. I find it ammuzing that we take a QB who was fortunate to be on a 3 superbowl title winning team. A QB that has never suffered a post season loss and we compare him to a QB who had 5 losses in the playoffs. 4 of them on the road against teams that were flat out better then the Colts. Yet Cold Hard Facts would like to paint Peyton Manning as nothing more then a Choke Artist and Tom Brady as a superior god dressed in a Patriots uniform. Doing this by only giving you the Cold Hard facts that back up there " Cold Hard Facts ".

Ok, stop right there for a moment, re-read what you wrote. a QB who won 3 superbowls and has never lost a post season game! As for the "4 losses on the road against teams that were flat out better". Last year the Colts had one of if not the best offense in the histroy of the NFL, yet if you look it wasn't the Defense that lost the game, it was the offense and typically it's been the offense (manning) that hasn't done very well in the playoffs.

Originally Posted by Rectal Pertruder What VEL and Cold Hard Facts dont give you is career playoff stats. If they did then this is what you would find. Tom Brady : http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/playerS...seasonStatus=5 Peyton Manning : http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/playerS...seasonStatus=5 Tom Brady stats arent exactly better then Peyton Mannings stats in the post season. Infact with these acception of Brady having a 2% more completion percentage and 5 less interceptions. Manning is better then Brady in every other stats. Even down to rushing. His passer rating is even better despite the +5 interceptions he's giving up to Tom Brady.

So, Brady has a better completion % and less interceptions.
But of course that doesn't matter since Manning averged 3.0yds per rush when Brady only got 1.6.

Originally Posted by Rectal Pertruder Clearly if we are arguing who the better QB is. The stats dont lie. Manning surely does not have the glory of being a Superbowl champion ( yet ), but is that because Tom Brady is a better QB? I dont think so. I think its because Tom Brady is a product of a great system instilled in New England. He is not a better QB. Not in the regular season or the post season. He's just been on the better team. The stats dont lie.

Well, you're right on one thing, the stats don't lie and if we went strictly by stats Brady is the better post season QB, weather you want to go by the indivudal stats or the bigger "team stat" which is wins.

I'll give you Manning's stats in the regular season, no question he's a GREAT regular season QB.

Is Brady the "better QB", Physically, Manning is a little taller, stronger, has a quicker release probably... But, then you have Brady, Well, let's refer to that article for a moment.

Fact 4: Brady is one of the great clutch performers in NFL history with the best record in tight games, the best record in overtime, the best record in the post-season, the best record. Period. Oh yeah, the only QB in NFL history to lead two last-second, game-winning scoring drives in championship games. Guess that's not quite as impressive to you as Manning's six TD passes in a regular season game against Detroit.

So, if Manning is the better Physical tool'd QB, what do we call Brady? The smater QB? The calmer under pressure QB?

Here's a few clips from that article.

Fact 3: Brady has the 7th best passer rating in NFL history at 87.5, better than Marino, Favre, Elway and quite a few other hall-of-fame players. (Manning just surpassed Brady this year after his record-setting regular season). Not bad for an "overrated" QB.

Fact 6: You keep citing New England's "brilliant" defense. But 30 of 38 Super Bowl-winning teams had a better defense than New England's 2001 team, which surrendered 17.0 points per game. Eighteen of 38 Super Bowl winners had a better defense than New England's 2003 team (14.9 PPG). Look it up. Better yet, we'll send you the numbers.

Fact 7: All the great multi-championship QBs in NFL history were surrounded by better defenses and/or more highly touted talent than Brady. Dispute this. I dare you.

QB in Super Bowl history has won more with less talent around him than Brady. Montana, Bradshaw, Starr and Brady's other equals in post-season performances played on teams littered with Pro Bowlers and hall of famers. Two-time Super Bowl MVP Starr played with 10 hall of famers and a hall-of-fame coach. Two-time Super Bowl MVP Bradshaw played with eight hall of famers and a hall-of-fame coach. The 1984 49ers (to cite one great Niners team) had 10 Pro Bowlers, a hall-of-fame coach and, as we speak, two hall of famers (but that number will soon grow). Brady has played with just four positional teammates (Seymour, Milloy, Law, McGinest) who even made the Pro Bowl during his four years at the helm in New England. Brady, in other words, certainly looks spectacular by comparison.

On this one, clearly Belicheck will make the HOF, one could argue for Law, McGinest? I'm home-town biased on him, so not sure. Dillon and down the road possible Seymore and/or Branch...

Fact 2: Manning is one of the great choke artists in NFL history (54.6 rating in four playoff losses). You haven't even attempted to explain this.

See, where RP likes to point at the "total playoff stats" he misses where the term "choke artist" comes from, it's clearly not from the wins, it's the losses and more important how one lost. 54.6 in four losses.