JSngry Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Best. Fan. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 You're a real rinner brosef! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedR Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Jim's YouTube video is an example why Cleveland sports teams will never again promote with 10 cent beer nights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Nothing bizarro about that game. Defense still wins championships, even if some folks want to believe otherwise. Denver is all offense, no defense. And that offense hadn't played any defense that was worth a shit all year. Nothing about last night surprised me. I found it very satisfying. I enjoyed the game, too, but one key point about why Seattle and the second-best team in the NFL, San Francisco, had such great defenses: Both teams have young QBs who were not drafted in the first round and thus were playing under cheap rookie contracts; this left those two teams with lots of money to spend on developing and signing lots of talented defensive players versus teams that felt they had to spend lots of dough to acquire or keep a top notch QB. The results of this Super Bowl don't necessarily mean that defense outweighs offense but that your salary cap situation and how intelligently you deal with it pretty much determines your football fate, along name-your-poison, swings-and-roundabouts lines. Assuming that Seattle and San Francisco decide to pay Wilson and Kapernick what the market will bear when their cheap rookie contracts expire, the defenses of those teams probably will look very different. For example, last year's Super Bowl champion Ravens had to let go of a lot of their defensive stalwarts this year after they signed Joe Flacco to a very expensive contract. Could they/should they have let Flacco walk after he led them to victory? It would have taken a GM and an owner with brass balls to do that, and who the heck would the Ravens QB have been then anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Ptah Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Really good point Larry. The teams with a big dollar QB, who has played past his rookie contract and has to be paid the really big dollars, can't have the supporting cast that a team with a QB on a rookie contract can have. However, when your team wins a Super Bowl with the big dollar QB, it can all seem worth the other years of near miss disappointments in the playoffs. What must really hurt is when a team pays its QB the huge money and then does not win anyway--Detroit and Dallas come to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Hmmm... While you're points are quite valid, Larry, I don't see how that invalidates the fact that defense indeed wins championships. If nothing else it actually strengthens the argument. Check this out: http://sportspressnw.com/2176870/2014/no-1-offense-vs-no-1-defense-the-winner-is As for Flacco, I thought it took a ship of fools to sign him to such an absurd contract. I'd have let him go and not looked back. The simple fact is that he isn't a very good NFL QB. And those punts he threw all throughout the playoffs last year where defensive backs fell down or blew assignments didn't really help his case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Ptah Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Hmmm... While you're points are quite valid, Larry, I don't see how that invalidates the fact that defense indeed wins championships. If nothing else it actually strengthens the argument. Check this out: http://sportspressnw.com/2176870/2014/no-1-offense-vs-no-1-defense-the-winner-is As for Flacco, I thought it took a ship of fools to sign him to such an absurd contract. I'd have let him go and not looked back. The simple fact is that he isn't a very good NFL QB. And those punts he threw all throughout the playoffs last year where defensive backs fell down or blew assignments didn't really help his case. I think that the teams with really good quarterbacks still on their cheap rookie contract can pay for more defensive stars. So it fits together. The Packers are a good example. With Rodgers on a mega-contract, when Clay Matthews went out with an injury the defensive cupboard was too bare. They just did not have the quantity of good defensive players under contract, that a team like Seattle or San Francisco can stockpile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_L Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 The SB may have been satisfying in some way to many, particularly Seattle fans, but other than the halftime concert and the commercials, it was not very entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Larry, the Wall Street Journal made a similar observation a couple of months ago. It was the author's belief that teams would stop paying such a high percentage of their payrolls to the quarterbacks in order to have money to spend for a good offensive line. The SB may have been satisfying in some way to many, particularly Seattle fans, but other than the halftime concert and the commercials, it was not very entertaining. I usually skip the Super Bowl halftimes, but I'm glad I didn't this year. I was very impressed with Bruno Mars' band. I think that they would make a lot of people look good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I'm still a little amused at how unprepared mentally Denver seemed to be. Seattle was gonna rock'em, sure, but Denver that decision to go on 4th and 2 in the 2nd, that was just stupid, like uhhhhh....why are we here again? Things like that, your center puts the opening snap up and out, wtf kind of "preparation" is that? Laughable, that's what kind it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Larry, the Wall Street Journal made a similar observation a couple of months ago. It was the author's belief that teams would stop paying such a high percentage of their payrolls to the quarterbacks in order to have money to spend for a good offensive line. The SB may have been satisfying in some way to many, particularly Seattle fans, but other than the halftime concert and the commercials, it was not very entertaining. I usually skip the Super Bowl halftimes, but I'm glad I didn't this year. I was very impressed with Bruno Mars' band. I think that they would make a lot of people look good. While you need to be good to excellent in a lot of places on your roster to win it all, QB is still the most important position -- a great or near-great one like Aaron Rodgers can make an otherwise almost piss-poor team like this year's Packers very dangerous and do it almost single-handed. Yes, the Seahawks' defense was awesome, but Manning at this point in his career, and maybe always to some degree, is far more of a system QB, albeit a brilliant one (the same goes for Tom Brady), than Rodgers is. Substitute Rodgers for Manning, leave the rest of the Broncos roster the same, and I think it would have been a much more competitive Super Bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 LOL I love reading the opinions of those who have seemingly not watched much football. Manning. A system QB?!?! Hahaha... Um, yeah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 LOL I love reading the opinions of those who have seemingly not watched much football. Manning. A system QB?!?! Hahaha... Um, yeah... Speaking in relative terms, you don't think that Manning's success has taken place more within a specific system, both in Indianapolis and in Denver (note that both of those offenses are/were virtually identical and are the brainchild of Indy's former offensive coordinator Tom Moore), than Aaron Rodgers' has? Not that GB's offense is one of improvisation, of course, but I can't count the number of great plays that Rodgers has made over the years after the play as designed has broken down. P.S. Which is not to say that Manning and Moore didn't devise their system in close collaboration. But when that offense, which depends on the interaction of so many precisely moving parts, runs into a defense like Seattle's defense that blows apart its interactive precision, Manning himself has few options, while an Aaron Rodgers would IMO have more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 You may want to first learn what "system quarterback" actually means. A system quarterback is one that plays and has success due to the system. And the system can plug almost any quarterback into it and still remain successful. Take the Bill Walsh system as an example. Never missed a beat when Montana went down and Young had to step in, did it? Or how about the year Brady went down in New England and Matt Cassel, fucking MATT CASSEL, led them to an 11-5 record? Now, tell me how Green Bay did this season after Rodgers went down? How about when the Colts magically went from 10-6 to 2-14 when Manning sat out the season. No, brother. There is a huge difference between a true system QB, and those whose skills exceed all others and personally carry their teams. And Rodgers makes more plays after a play has broken down because he is incredibly athletic and mobile. That has absolutely zero to do with the system he plays in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_L Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Broncos, Seahawks party hard in NYC ahead of Super Bowl This may have been the real difference in the game. The Broncos partied a little harder than the Seahawks. From that first bad snap you could tell who was more hungover and sleep-deprived. Edited February 7, 2014 by Jerry_L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 You may want to first learn what "system quarterback" actually means. A system quarterback is one that plays and has success due to the system. And the system can plug almost any quarterback into it and still remain successful. Take the Bill Walsh system as an example. Never missed a beat when Montana went down and Young had to step in, did it? Or how about the year Brady went down in New England and Matt Cassel, fucking MATT CASSEL, led them to an 11-5 record? Now, tell me how Green Bay did this season after Rodgers went down? How about when the Colts magically went from 10-6 to 2-14 when Manning sat out the season. No, brother. There is a huge difference between a true system QB, and those whose skills exceed all others and personally carry their teams. And Rodgers makes more plays after a play has broken down because he is incredibly athletic and mobile. That has absolutely zero to do with the system he plays in. Seems to me that we're arguing at cross purposes here, or we're both trapped in an echo chamber. To me, a system QB is one who plays within a system (one that may, as in Manning's case, have been collaboratively crafted with his gifts in mind) and has success within it but might not have that much success outside of it. Montana might be a good example; he was, albeit late in life, pretty much a dud with the otherwise mediocre Chiefs. That the 49er offensive system was as good or better with Young, arguably a superior QB to Montana, taking over from him says to me only that a smart precision system works well with someone good at QB and as good or better with someone even better at QB. Can't prove that Manning wouldn't be great outside of the system he's always played in as a pro because as a pro I don't believe that he's never played outside of that system. But in the case of a few key games, like this year's Super Bowl, when that system has been thwarted, Manning often has been too -- he's not, in terms of athleticism and long-honed habits, a QB who can put the whole team on his shoulders the way Rodgers at his best can. Nor, I would guess, are Manning's system-honed teams built for improvisation should their plays break down -- not the way GB's teams under Rodgers (or before him Favre) seem to have been. You write: "Now, tell me how Green Bay did this season after Rodgers went down? How about when the Colts magically went from 10-6 to 2-14 when Manning sat out the season. "No, brother. There is a huge difference between a true system QB, and those whose skills exceed all others and personally carry their teams. "And Rodgers makes more plays after a play has broken down because he is incredibly athletic and mobile. That has absolutely zero to do with the system he plays in." But those are pretty much the point or points that I've been making, especially your final paragraph. Of course, GB faltered this year because the team without Rodgers was otherwise mediocre and "the incredibly athletic and mobile" Rodgers wasn't there to save their bacon. Likewise, though the system remained the same, Manning's replacement when he went down at Indy that year (I forget his name) wasn't good enough to either run that system very well or to semi-improvise his way to some success. To repeat, I wholly agree with your "Rodgers makes more plays after a play has broken down because he is incredibly athletic and mobile. That has absolutely zero to do with the system he plays in." I thought that's what I was saying from the first. All I was saying in addition was that, to my eye, Manning when forced outside of his system doesn't have the options that Rodgers has -- in terms of personal athleticism, ability to calculate at a high level on the run, and teammates who are used to free-lancing should a play break down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) If the system works, it can work for pretty much any decent QB plugged into it. If you take the star QB out and someone else comes in and does just as well, they are system QB's. Cassel and Young being the two examples I gave. How do you explain them having the same level of success of the guys they replaced? And why did Cassel fall flat on his face in KC? They brought the same offensive system from New England. If the QB goes down and their replacement shits up the joint, a la what happened in both Green Bay and Indianapolis, it's not the system. It's the QB. In 1993, many "experts" had the Dolphins pegged to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. They came roaring out to a 4-1 start when Marino went down for the season. They tried Scott Mitchell, Doug Pederson, and Steve DeBerg who led the team to 9-7, missing the playoffs. It wasn't the system, it was Marino. Some QB's are just heads and shoulders better than all others. Guys like Marino, Manning, Rodgers, and Elway weren't/aren't system QB's. They were/are freaks of nature. And it has nothing to do with the systems. Sorry. Same could also be said if Favre. Edited February 7, 2014 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 If the system works, it can work for pretty much any decent QB plugged into it. If you take the star QB out and someone else comes in and does just as well, they are system QB's. Cassel and Young being the two examples I gave. How do you explain them having the same level of success of the guys they replaced? And why did Cassel fall flat on his face in KC? They brought the same offensive system from New England. If the QB goes down and their replacement shits up the joint, a la what happened in both Green Bay and Indianapolis, it's not the system. It's the QB. In 1993, many "experts" had the Dolphins pegged to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. They came roaring out to a 4-1 start when Marino went down for the season. They tried Scott Mitchell, Doug Pederson, and Steve DeBerg who led the team to 9-7, missing the playoffs. It wasn't the system, it was Marino. Some QB's are just heads and shoulders better than all others. Guys like Marino, Manning, Rodgers, and Elway weren't/aren't system QB's. They were/are freaks of nature. And it has nothing to do with the systems. Sorry. Same could also be said if Favre. Are you saying that Cassell and Young were similarly talented? Young, I repeat, was arguably a better QB than Montana -- the Walsh system worked even better with Young (a Hall of Fame player) at QB. As for the fair-to-middling Cassell, he flopped in KC running the NE system because KC didn't have a roster that was anywhere as good as NE's. "Some QB's are just heads and shoulders better than all others" is part of what I've been saying. What we're disagreeing about is whether the undeniably superb Manning is more beholden to the system he's always played in as a pro than QBs like Marino, Rodgers, Favre, and Elway were/are to the systems they were/are part of. Again, I think there's little or no evidence out there of how Manning would have played outside the relatively systematized system he's always played under, so were left with the evidence of how Rodgers, Favre et al. have played under seemingly less systematized systems and, in particular, how they've played when they've been forced to or have chosen to freelance. No proof, then, but doesn't your eye tell you that Manning lacks some of the over-the-top athleticism (e.g. escapability and/or near unreal arm strength. etc.) that the other great QBs were talking about possess and thus might not be as able they were/are to save the day when the system, such as it is, begins to crumble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Larry, here's what I'm not understanding about your point (which is otherwise sound, mind you). You make it seem as though less mobile QB's are simply system QB's. As though the more athletically gifted QB's play in a less stringent/complex/whathaveyou system. That simply isn't true. Seemingly you're saying Denver's system playbook is Moby Dick, while Green Bay's is a pamphlet that reads, "run like hell when you're first option is covered". That just doesn't make any sense. It kind of relates to Bum's famous "his'n and your'n" statement he made about Coach Shula many moons ago. Bill Walsh had the ultimate plug-n-play system. Belichick has one now. But at the end of the day, let's be perfectly honest here. Dan Marino didn't re-write the record book because he wasn't athletically gifted. And he did it with no running game to speak of. The Dolphins under Marino hardly ever saw a 7 man box, let alone 8. Manning didn't re-write Marino's re-written record book because he's not athletically gifted. Neither were mobile, but it hardly mattered. They had such incredible minds, and such quick releases that they never had to worry about getting flushed out of the pocket very much. Hell, if nothing else you could say they were far superior to these other cats because they made the plays that were drawn up, work! As for Young being better than Montana? You won't find many that will agree with you there. As I've been getting at with this post, they simply got things done in different ways. And even though Young was quite mobile, he didn't play the game as Cunningham/Favre/Vick/etc. did. I guess perhaps we need to reconsider what the term "system" actually means. Though, I suppose we could at least both agree Barry Sanders was NOT a "system" running back. And I would like to apologize for my minor "outburst" yesterday. Truth be told, I'm rather enjoying our conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Larry, here's what I'm not understanding about your point (which is otherwise sound, mind you). You make it seem as though less mobile QB's are simply system QB's. As though the more athletically gifted QB's play in a less stringent/complex/whathaveyou system. That simply isn't true. Seemingly you're saying Denver's system playbook is Moby Dick, while Green Bay's is a pamphlet that reads, "run like hell when you're first option is covered". That just doesn't make any sense. It kind of relates to Bum's famous "his'n and your'n" statement he made about Coach Shula many moons ago. Bill Walsh had the ultimate plug-n-play system. Belichick has one now. But at the end of the day, let's be perfectly honest here. Dan Marino didn't re-write the record book because he wasn't athletically gifted. And he did it with no running game to speak of. The Dolphins under Marino hardly ever saw a 7 man box, let alone 8. Manning didn't re-write Marino's re-written record book because he's not athletically gifted. Neither were mobile, but it hardly mattered. They had such incredible minds, and such quick releases that they never had to worry about getting flushed out of the pocket very much. Hell, if nothing else you could say they were far superior to these other cats because they made the plays that were drawn up, work! As for Young being better than Montana? You won't find many that will agree with you there. As I've been getting at with this post, they simply got things done in different ways. And even though Young was quite mobile, he didn't play the game as Cunningham/Favre/Vick/etc. did. I guess perhaps we need to reconsider what the term "system" actually means. Though, I suppose we could at least both agree Barry Sanders was NOT a "system" running back. And I would like to apologize for my minor "outburst" yesterday. Truth be told, I'm rather enjoying our conversation. I don't mean at all that "less mobile QB's are simply system QB's. As though the more athletically gifted QB's play in a less stringent/complex/whathaveyou system." Some athletically gifted QBs can and do play in fairly systematized settings (Steve Young would be a good example) and have great success doing so, other such QBs play in less systematized settings. OTOH, if you've got an athletically gifted QB who also has a taste for freelancing, a la Favre, you the coach might decide that loosening the reins some is your best option because your QB is going to freelance a fair bit no matter what and probably have success doing so. As for Young versus Montana, here's a fairly thorough analysis that pretty much concludes that it's very close between them. Only problem I have with it is that, unless I'm mistaken, it throws Young's two years with Tampa into the hopper; I would think that one should compare only their abundant SF stats because Tampa was a dog team when Young was there: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/155771-joe-montana-vs-steve-young-an-extensive-look-inside-the-numbers The guy's rather equivocal conclusion: "Both two quarterbacks had exceptionally brilliant careers but when it's all said and done, I feel that Joe Montana is the greater of the two. At the same time, I've also decided that Steve Young may have been the better of the two quarterbacks." Say what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 You don't think Dungy or Fox "loosened the reins" when it came to Manning? It just manifests itself in a different way. As I said, perhaps we need to reconsider what "system" really means. And you have to include Young's days with Tampa Bay (the only professional sports franchise not named after a city, BTW). And when you do, it really damns him as a "system" QB, going by the standards you and I have set here. Just as Montana was mediocre in KC. The only problem I have with it is that the mobile QB was in prototype mode back in the days Young was in Tampa Bay. Just as Marino himself said recently, he would most likely throw for 6,000 yds with today's rules. And therein lies the problem with everything we're discussing. Different era's. Manning is somewhat the last of his kind when you really get down to it. The concrete-footed pocket passer is quickly becoming extinct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 No, I don't think that Dungy or Fox "loosened the reins" when it came to Manning because the system that both Dungy and Fox were using was devised by Indy's former OC Tom Moore in order to utilize Manning's specific gifts, and Manning almost certainly had lots of input into Moore's thinking. No reins needed to be loosened because the system was custom fitted by Moore and Manning to Manning's desires/needs/style/capabilities. I don't see how Young's mediocre record with a mediocre Tampa Bay team 'damns him as a "system" QB, going by the standards you and I have set here' -- though I'm not sure what you mean by 'damns him as a "system" QB.' That Young wasn't one at all ever? That he wasn't one in Tampa Bay? I don't get it. I think Young was a system QB in SF to the considerable degree that he ran Walsh's already in place system, but that he also gave Walsh and then Seifert further options that at times may have involved more freelancing/deviations from the system because Young was so mobile and had such skills as a runner. Tampa Bay's system, such as it was, sure wasn't SF's, nor were there enough good players on the Tampa Bay roster to make any system work that well. Just as Montana was mediocre in KC not only because of his age but also because the rest of their roster was mediocre. BTW, if what you meant was that Young was a systems QB in Tampa Bay but a lousy one -- I doubt that Tampa Bay at the time had an offensive system that was at all like Walsh's in effectiveness or complexity, and besides, again, it was a team of mediocre players; they would have been mediocre if they had been running any system imaginable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 ...Tampa Bay (the only professional sports franchise not named after a city, BTW). The Texas Rangers thank you for noticing that Texas is now a city, one bigass giant city with some, but not all, areas waiting to be populated by people, places, and/or things. Rick Perry, Mayor of Texas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 FWIW: "The Indianapolis Colts, for whom Tom Moore served as an offensive coordinator since 1998, won Super Bowl XLI in February 2007. Moore coached the offense under head coaches Jim Mora, Dungy and Jim Caldwell. He oversaw the development of quarterback Peyton Manning for Manning's entire career." A detailed account of the Moore-Manning offense. The guy says that it's basically simple, and in one sense it is -- many branches off of a basic tree -- but it sure doesn't sound simple to execute properly: http://smartfootball.com/offense/peyton-manning-and-tom-moores-indianapolis-colts-offense#sthash.t3Fk2NET.dpbs BTW, a classic example of a genuine system QB (IMO) would be Josh McCown with the Bears last season. An aged intelligent journeyman with moderate skills, McCown took over Marc Trestman's highly systematized offense when Jay Cutler went down and had much success simply because he read every "read" as he was supposed to in Trestman's scheme. Could he have prevailed against a Seattle-level defense? Almost certainly not. But a lot of fans thought that the Bears should dump the clearly more talented Cutler and keep McCown. If McCown plays anywhere next season (he might retire), I doubt that he'll ever have as much success again. He was a system QB in the right system with enough of the right offensive talent around him. He could take you so far but no farther. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 ...Tampa Bay (the only professional sports franchise not named after a city, BTW). The Texas Rangers thank you for noticing that Texas is now a city, one bigass giant city with some, but not all, areas waiting to be populated by people, places, and/or things. Rick Perry, Mayor of Texas! I should have said city or state. Thanks for being a douche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.