Are you ready for some Football?!? (NFL)

[John Crichton]

You mean they have the best player in the league?

That is a valid arguement. I typically sway towards QBs if they are as good as Peyton as they effect every offensive play as opposed to the 30 touches that a star RB gets. That said, if either of those two go down with injury the team is dead.

I'd take LT over Peyton any day of the week. Heck, Peyton isn't even the top QB I'd take if I was starting an NFL team. Give me a Brady who can make any receiver look golden over someone who falls to pieces and starts blaming everyone around him as soon as anything goes wrong.

I love Brady as a QB (hate the Pats), he is as clutch as they come. He has the rings to prove it. That said, you give Peyton Brady's defense, coach and kicker and this is a different conversation.

Talk about a playoff choke artist.

When has he cost his team the game in the playoffs? Check out the defensive performances and witness his kicker botch the Steelers game last year. You are putting too much blame on a QB who has little to no impact on how the defense performs and forgetting that Brady's Pats were balanced teams that didn't need him all the time to win. The arguement could be made that Vinatieri + Defense was just as important as Brady in their SB wins.

Put it this way: Think about Brady having the Colts Defense and imagine if they would have beaten the Rams, Carolina or Philly. Or even made the Super Bowl any of those years.

And don't forget that Belichick is a much better coach than Dungy. He does more with less.

 

[John Crichton]

So...what you're saying is that Peyton Manning should be playing for Schottenheimer.

That would be better for Marty. Peyton wouldn't stand for his conservative play calling. He'd just audable to passes and draws all day long.

 

[drothgery]

And don't forget that Belichick is a much better coach than Dungy. He does more with less.

Really? Dungy built a consistent playoff team in Tampa with just a defense worth of talent -- which someone else won a Super Bowl with the next year, and promptly disintegrated the year after that. And then Dungy went to Indy, where he's got an offense and a pass rush specialist. And he's consistently had the best regular season in the AFC, and has rarely fallen in the playoffs to anyone other than the eventual Super Bowl winner.

Belicheck has had fewer superstars, but that hardly means they had less talent. Especially in 2003 and 2004, the Pats have been above average on offense, defense, and special teams (though the main advantage of Venitari over Vanderjagt was not 'being clutch', it was on kickoffs, where he was much better than either Vanderjagt or the dedicated kickoff specialists the Colts started bringing in). He has more to do with the Pats success than Dungy does with the Colts, but that's only because he's wearing a GM hat as well; someone else is in that role in Indy.

 

[Gunslinger]

Bengals beat the Saints in the Super Bowl!!

The Bengals were my preseason pick to win the Super Bowl, though I didn't put any money on them. They would have won it last year if Carson Palmer hadn't gotten injured.

 

[Crothian]

The Bengals were my preseason pick to win the Super Bowl, though I didn't put any money on them. They would have won it last year if Carson Palmer hadn't gotten injured.

They would have had a better chance but nothing is ever that certain in the NFL.

These Thursday and Saturday games on the NFL network is just dumb.

 

[John Crichton]

Really?

Yes!

Dungy built a consistent playoff team in Tampa with just a defense worth of talent -- which someone else won a Super Bowl with the next year, and promptly disintegrated the year after that.

You just made a point against Dungy. He put the team together but didn't win the SB with them. And in this era, the win and collapse the following season bug has hit everyone not coached by Belichick. And even the Pats had a bad season in there, too.

And then Dungy went to Indy, where he's got an offense and a pass rush specialist. And he's consistently had the best regular season in the AFC, and has rarely fallen in the playoffs to anyone other than the eventual Super Bowl winner.

It's an okay point, but Dungy has no Super Bowl rings and Belichick owned him in the playoffs. One of the reasons last year's collapse was so brutal for the Colts was because the Pats were gone and they would have had home field.

Belichick has had fewer superstars, but that hardly means they had less talent. Especially in 2003 and 2004, the Pats have been above average on offense, defense, and special teams (though the main advantage of Venitari over Vanderjagt was not 'being clutch', it was on kickoffs, where he was much better than either Vanderjagt or the dedicated kickoff specialists the Colts started bringing in). He has more to do with the Pats success than Dungy does with the Colts, but that's only because he's wearing a GM hat as well; someone else is in that role in Indy.

While the impact on kickoffs is a valid point, you have to look again to defense. The Pats could stifle Manning but the Colts D could not do the same to the comparatively conservative Pats.

As for the GM hats, I don't buy it. The coach has plenty of input on personnel choices and the fact that Belichick does both in New England solidifies him even further as a better coach and personnel man. He doing more with less time if you want to look at it from that angle.

And the most important differences between the two are that Belichick has 3 rings as a head coach and 2 as an assistant. Dungy has one - as a player. Head to head, who would you rather have prepping and coaching your team? The guy who was mentored by Bill Parcells, won Super Bowls with him and then went on to build the league's modern day dynasty or the guy with no rings and lots of losses including zero Super Bowl appearances?

Mind you, I hate the Pats, Brady and want Peyton to get his ring by going through the Pats. Dungy also seems like a great guy and probably deserves a SB win. Doesn't change the fact that he's not a better coach than Belichick.

 

[drothgery]

And the most important differences between the two are that Belichick has 3 rings as a head coach and 2 as an assistant. Dungy has one - as a player. Head to head, who would you rather have prepping and coaching your team? The guy who was mentored by Bill Parcells, won Super Bowls with him and then went on to build the league's modern day dynasty or the guy with no rings and lots of losses including zero Super Bowl appearances?

I'm really sick of the 'championships uber alles' measuring stick of coaches and players (especially quarterbacks). Tony Dungy is a much better coach than Mike Martz. Peyton Manning is a much better quarterback than Trent Dilfer. That the latter have won Super Bowls and the former haven't isn't going to change this.

 

[Crothian]

I agree, if Championships determined who was the best Otto Grahm would be tops.

 

[DaveMage]

I'm really sick of the 'championships uber alles' measuring stick of coaches and players (especially quarterbacks). Tony Dungy is a much better coach than Mike Martz. Peyton Manning is a much better quarterback than Trent Dilfer. That the latter have won Super Bowls and the former haven't isn't going to change this.

Gotta disagree.

How a player and coach perform at crunch time is the MOST telling factor.

Players and coaches can pad stats against loser teams during the regular season, but if you can't win at crunch time, what good is it?

I will add, though, that you can really only judge such a player or coach after their career is over. Right now, Peyton Manning looks like a choker. If he wins a Super Bowl or two, he will cement himself as one of (if not THE) greatest ever. But if he can't win the big one, all the stats are meaningless.

(However, your point about Dilfer is a good one. I'd argue, though, that Dilfer just happened to be along for the ride.)

 

[Aurora]

Gotta disagree.

How a player and coach perform at crunch time is the MOST telling factor.

Players and coaches can pad stats against loser teams during the regular season, but if you can't win at crunch time, what good is it?

I will add, though, that you can really only judge such a player or coach after their career is over. Right now, Peyton Manning looks like a choker. If he wins a Super Bowl or two, he will cement himself as one of (if not THE) greatest ever. But if he can't win the big one, all the stats are meaningless.

(However, your point about Dilfer is a good one. I'd argue, though, that Dilfer just happened to be along for the ride.)

I have to agree with this. Especially the padding stats against loser teams. For example, Cowher is known by some for being a "winning coach that can't win the big game" He finally took his team to a Super Bowl and won, but I think it will take a couple more wins of that or close to that caliber for him to completely shake that rep. (This year isn't helping)
Speaking of the Steelers, big game tonight. We have a friend who is a Browns fan coming over tonight to watch with us. So, him and DShai are gonna be ripping at eachother the whole night. LOL With Ward, Wilson, and Polamalu out though I am not real optimistic as to the Steelers' fate this evening.