Page 28 of 28 FirstFirst ... 182425262728
Results 676 to 684 of 684

Thread: Non-Colts thread

  1. #676

    Default Re: Non-Colts thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Steelers were known first and foremost for the "Steel Curtain"....
    Which makes it more absurd that the QB gets most of the credit(and blame) to begin with I guess because its the star position its part of the job description.

    I mean Manning has a ring but without Bob Sanders or Marlin intercepting Brady, Adam pretty much scoring all our points vs Baltimore he'd be ringless like Marino right about now.

  2. #677

    Default Re: Non-Colts thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Basketball Fan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I said it was relative but this is the argument people use against Kobe even if he were to tie Michael Jordan with six rings well Jordan never lost in the NBA Finals but Kobe has already lost 2 despite appearing in more Finals than Jordan has.
    and that is an equally illogical argument

    league championships are most important, but conference championships are next most important

    I know 49er fans who think that their organization is the best because they have never ever lost in a Super Bowl. Which would mean that if their team had lost yesterday, it apparently would be a far better outcome than winning yesterday, winning next Sunday, and then losing on Feb 3.



    And nobody ever mentions Terry Bradshaw who has just as many rings as Montana but isn't considered a GOAT despite it. Which is why the ring argument doesn't merit much to me.
    The ring argument, by itself, makes no sense to anyone. It is applied to Manning vs. Brady since we are talking about two QBs who, before you ever mention rings, have set all kinds of records and have amassed incredible individual statistics.

    Terry Bradshaw won a championship in a season when his passer rating was 55.2. As a point of reference, last year Curtis Painter's passer rating was 66.6. Rules favor passing now so I am not saying Bradshaw was the equal of Painter or vice versa, but in no way was he head and shoulders above his peers in individual stats either.

    He performed amazingly well on the biggest stage, had career best games in Super Bowls, and deserved his HOF induction, but even his profile at Steelers. com has some brutal honesty:

    ... Bradshaw was seen as somehow different. He just did not seem to have the right stuff. He was talented enough. No one in the league threw a more powerful pass than Bradshaw, who could sting a receiver's hands 50 yards downfield. At 6 feet 3 inches and 220 pounds, he was the ideal size and he was naturally gifted, all right. But he was a little rough around the edges. After eight NFL seasons, he still had not been selected to a Pro Bowl.

    (For his first 5 seasons) even his coach, Chuck Noll, doubted Bradshaw on occasion, benching him at various times for Terry Hanratty and Joe Gilliam...
    http://www.steelers.com/history/thre...-bradshaw.html
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-14-2013 at 08:53 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  4. #678
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    29
    Posts
    5,941

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Non-Colts thread


  5. The Following User Says Thank You to vapacersfan For This Useful Post:


  6. #679
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,119

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Non-Colts thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Steelers were known first and foremost for the "Steel Curtain"....
    I didn't realize I started the arugment in another thread. (maybe it was already on going)

    You can't give credit to anyone other than the QB. What they do is the only thing that matter if a team wins or not. I'm being sarcastic, but it's hard to understand how a defense can get credit for one team winning one SB while the defense isn't any part of the discussion for another.

  7. #680

    Default Re: Non-Colts thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    .. and a coach that was not hindered even by the existence of a salary cap.

    There is a reason why teams cannot stay at the top these days. The Patriots have only 22 players on their roster who were on the team just two years ago. That sort of continual roster upheaval, in large part to manage spending, was unheard of in the early 1980s.
    You know as well as I do that they gutted the team of previous picks due to under performing players.

    Are you trying to say that only the 49ers had a continuous roster in the 80's. Joe Montana's success wasn't about being able to retain 49er talent while other teams flondered to keep their roster together. The NFL rules effect everyone the same but you can still keep your most important players in todays NFL.

    Likewise I can say that the addition of 4 teams diluted the talent of the teams in todays NFL and made it easier to succeed in if you already had the most important cogs already in place like the Pats did.

    Would Tom Brady have survived as a pocket passer for 10 years in the 80's to even win 4 superbowls? ITs tough to say but I have seen Tom react to getting hit hard on a continuous basis and his stats go south real quick. I am not even sure he even comes back from that ACL tear he had in 08 if it happened in the 80's.

    Point is when you have a coach that revolutionizes the NFL and you have a player playing in a tougher age of football I tend to lean on that more than breaking passing stats or post season appearances.

  8. #681

    Default Re: Non-Colts thread

    The reality is that you do have to gut your roster not just for underperforming players and to make room for youth, but also for players that outperform what you have budgeted to pay them. That is something that teams in the early 80s did not have to deal with at all.

    Want examples?

    When BenJarvis Green-Ellis ran for 1,000 yards two years ago, you knew his price would go up when he hit free agency, so he's a Bengal now. Ridley developed nicely, but his 1,200 yard year actually is now a concern-- he may price himself out of staying in NE when his rookie contract ends. Vereen went crazy vs. Houston and that may even be good news/ bad news with respect to his value.

    Welker is the Pats 3rd best offensive player after Brady and Gronk but wants 9 million and 4 years. The Pats don't want to write that check because of the cap. Will they work something out? I hope so. In the 80s you'd write the check with no worries.

    Trading Richard Seymour to the Raiders left a gaping hole on the D-line that wasn't really filled until this year. It was a totally salary-driven move that hurt the team for 2 seasons.

    Dan Koppen, Brandon Meriweather, James Sanders - these are all salary cap cuts, not for talent but for dollar reasons.

    It is much harder to build and keep a core of even a dozen players today. One can say that it's true for all the competition as well, so maybe just the level of depth and consistency across the league is less than it used to be.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  9. #682
    flexible and robust SoupIsGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lappy Go Hucky
    Age
    26
    Posts
    17,540

    Default Re: Non-Colts thread

    I do think a key aspect of succeeding in the NFL today is being willing to be priced out on a player you'd ideally like to keep. That's really a great point. It's hard to argue against how the Pats have managed their budget.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  10. #683

    Default Re: Non-Colts thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The reality is that you do have to gut your roster not just for underperforming players and to make room for youth, but also for players that outperform what you have budgeted to pay them. That is something that teams in the early 80s did not have to deal with at all.

    Want examples?

    When BenJarvis Green-Ellis ran for 1,000 yards two years ago, you knew his price would go up when he hit free agency, so he's a Bengal now. Ridley developed nicely, but his 1,200 yard year actually is now a concern-- he may price himself out of staying in NE when his rookie contract ends. Vereen went crazy vs. Houston and that may even be good news/ bad news with respect to his value.

    Welker is the Pats 3rd best offensive player after Brady and Gronk but wants 9 million and 4 years. The Pats don't want to write that check because of the cap. Will they work something out? I hope so. In the 80s you'd write the check with no worries.

    Trading Richard Seymour to the Raiders left a gaping hole on the D-line that wasn't really filled until this year. It was a totally salary-driven move that hurt the team for 2 seasons.

    Dan Koppen, Brandon Meriweather, James Sanders - these are all salary cap cuts, not for talent but for dollar reasons.

    It is much harder to build and keep a core of even a dozen players today. One can say that it's true for all the competition as well, so maybe just the level of depth and consistency across the league is less than it used to be.
    I am not denying that the roster turnover has increased due to the salary cap. There really isn't arguement there however when you consider every teams has to do it just like every team in the 1980's could hold on to their key players much longer which would aid in tougher competition across the board.

    The key has always been to obtain a franchise QB and maintain key players on defense and offense. Is it slightly different? Sure but I don't think its a huge advantage as the penality changes for the QB and WR have been.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoupIsGood View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I do think a key aspect of succeeding in the NFL today is being willing to be priced out on a player you'd ideally like to keep. That's really a great point. It's hard to argue against how the Pats have managed their budget.
    Sure managing the salary cap is important now but no one prices you out of the players you have to have. Jerry Rice and Montana and Lott would have gone nowhere if they played in todays NFL.
    Last edited by Gamble1; 01-15-2013 at 03:30 PM.

  11. #684

    Default Re: Non-Colts thread

    back to the present....

    Patriots with Rob Gronkowski on/off field in 2012 regular season

    Stat---------------On------------Off
    Comp. pct.--------65.7 ----------58.4
    Yards per play-----6.0------------5.4
    passing TD-INT----23-3----------11-6

    I suppose the analysis can be tempered by looking at the defenses of the teams played, but the Pats don't make up for not having him, and the sample size is about even (half a season each way)

    They try, and some other things can work well, but it is still "making do with less". Passing TDs are I assume replaced with a bump in rushing TDs, because there's no way that scoring was cut in half.

    I think making do with less can beat the Ravens and (if they got there) the Falcons. The Niners? Tougher road to hoe for sure.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Similar Threads

  1. heywoode's Colts cheerleader photo thread Colts-Chiefs 11/18/07
    By heywoode in forum Market Square (General Non-Sports Discussion)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-19-2007, 07:42 PM
  2. Colts Vs. Steelers War Cry Thread
    By Isaac in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-15-2006, 06:07 PM
  3. COLTS VS. PATRIOTS WAR CRY THREAD!
    By RWB in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-06-2005, 01:07 AM
  4. Colts/Rams thread.
    By pacercoltfan in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 208
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 05:15 PM
  5. Non-Colts week 3 thread......
    By Kstat in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-28-2004, 09:05 PM

Posting Permissions

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