Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Matt Cassel keeps me from fully believing Brady is the best.

You just had to do it, didn't you...

durdencommatyler wrote:

EJ wrote:Its very tough to rank all the great QB's. I mean, Terry Bradshaw won 4 SBs. I certainly would'nt put him anywhere near the top of the list of all time great QBs.

Personally, I always thought Dan Marino was the best and would probably do well in any era. As 4/5 mentioned, he elevated some pretty questionable teams to the playoffs on a regular basis: consistently lacked a running game and decent defenses.

It's a tricky argument, for sure. I guess, it comes down to how highly you value championships. Peyton is going to the hall of fame. And he absolutely should. He's one of the smartest, accurate, dedicated and exciting players to watch. Especially in regular season play.

I never saw Marino play. I can't compare what he did in the post season to what I've seen Manning do. For me, if there is a down side to Peyton Manning, it's that he isn't clutch. He doesn't elevate his play when it mattes the most, in the post season. Was the same true of Marino? Regardless of the players surrounding him, did Marino get better, elevate himself, and do everything in his power to make as few mistakes a possible and put his team in a position to win?

Marino had exactly 1 1000 yard rusher (which isn't even that big of a deal in a 16 game schedule) in 17 years - he was pretty much on his own offensively. And he had a top 10 defense only 4 times.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

EJ wrote:Its very tough to rank all the great QB's. I mean, Terry Bradshaw won 4 SBs. I certainly would'nt put him anywhere near the top of the list of all time great QBs.

Personally, I always thought Dan Marino was the best and would probably do well in any era. As 4/5 mentioned, he elevated some pretty questionable teams to the playoffs on a regular basis: consistently lacked a running game and decent defenses.

It's a tricky argument, for sure. I guess, it comes down to how highly you value championships. Peyton is going to the hall of fame. And he absolutely should. He's one of the smartest, accurate, dedicated and exciting players to watch. Especially in regular season play.

I never saw Marino play. I can't compare what he did in the post season to what I've seen Manning do. For me, if there is a down side to Peyton Manning, it's that he isn't clutch. He doesn't elevate his play when it mattes the most, in the post season. Was the same true of Marino? Regardless of the players surrounding him, did Marino get better, elevate himself, and do everything in his power to make as few mistakes a possible and put his team in a position to win?

Marino had exactly 1 1000 yard rusher (which isn't even that big of a deal in a 16 game schedule) in 17 years - he was pretty much on his own offensively. And he had a top 10 defense only 4 times.

Wow. So, he was the team. Impressive. I wish I would have been old enough to care and actually watch the guy play.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

EJ wrote:Its very tough to rank all the great QB's. I mean, Terry Bradshaw won 4 SBs. I certainly would'nt put him anywhere near the top of the list of all time great QBs.

Personally, I always thought Dan Marino was the best and would probably do well in any era. As 4/5 mentioned, he elevated some pretty questionable teams to the playoffs on a regular basis: consistently lacked a running game and decent defenses.

It's a tricky argument, for sure. I guess, it comes down to how highly you value championships. Peyton is going to the hall of fame. And he absolutely should. He's one of the smartest, accurate, dedicated and exciting players to watch. Especially in regular season play.

I never saw Marino play. I can't compare what he did in the post season to what I've seen Manning do. For me, if there is a down side to Peyton Manning, it's that he isn't clutch. He doesn't elevate his play when it mattes the most, in the post season. Was the same true of Marino? Regardless of the players surrounding him, did Marino get better, elevate himself, and do everything in his power to make as few mistakes a possible and put his team in a position to win?

Marino had exactly 1 1000 yard rusher (which isn't even that big of a deal in a 16 game schedule) in 17 years - he was pretty much on his own offensively. And he had a top 10 defense only 4 times.

Wow. So, he was the team. Impressive. I wish I would have been old enough to care and actually watch the guy play.

Yeah he was my favorite to watch (him and Barry). During his 1984 season when he threw 48 TDs, the previous record was 36... He had 5084 yds passing. Lomax had 4,614 and #3. Simms-4,044.

Why aren't the Falcons favored to win?

Because Kaepernick.

I don't know what that means.

surface the north wrote:Why aren't the Falcons favored to win?

Even the oddsmakers know the Falcons are choke artists.

And because Kaepernick has had a pet turtle since childhood:

also, the saints ran for many yards vs. the falcons, and the 49ers defense is nice.

surface the north wrote:Why aren't the Falcons favored to win?

Nationally no one believes that the Falcons are a good team because they lost in thier first playoff appearance the past 3 trips to the playoffs. Essentially confirmation bias, prior to the season no one believed the Falcons did enough to change thier roster into a playoff winner and no one is examining the emperical eveidence that the Falcons are a very good team and that they were incorrect in assessing that new coordinators would not improve an underperforming roster.

So sports bets have come in heavily on San Francisco primarily because they were in this game last season and people believe in Colin Kapernick after last weeks performance against the best QB in the NFL. (They neglect to mention that the Packers have been smoked the last 2 seasons in the playoffs due to some fairly awful defensive play)

The Falcons defense is smaller has less known talent (a much lesser pass rush) and has a tendency to give up a lot of yardage while only giving up 2 pts (18.7 to 17.1) more on average than the SF defense.

There are things each of these teams does slightly better and or slightly worse than the other team, the heavy favorite from Vegas comes from what people believe about the Falcons whether it's true or not. The fact remains if each team plays well, it's going to be a close game.

The whole choke artist thing, I don't buy it. They lost to a better team in 08 even if it did take a 4th and 18 or something and terrible coverage by one Keith Brooking. (The Cards were Better)

Even though they beat the Packers during the season in 2010 Aaron Rodgers had the game of his life and the Pack played a near perfect game in 2010 while the Falcons didn't play well. The Pack were a better team though most would agree.

Last year, was the single worst game plan ever put together in a football game by Mike Mularkey against the Giants who were a more complete football team last year as well and the defense was orchestrated by Brian Van Gorder (ask Auburn how that went). The Falcons had a freaking horrific OL last year. Giants were a better team.

Losing to better teams is not choking.

The 9 pt spread is pretty ridiculous.

If they were playing in Candlestick, I wouldn't give the Falcons any chance. But, they're playing at home. The fans will be unbelievably loud. And, they definitely have a chip on their shoulder. They feel like the underdogs - and, that's a dangerous situation for SF.

I agree with Electro about GB's inexcusable defensive strategy last week. The constant blitzes clearly wasn't the answer - yet, they kept doing it. The Falcons really don't have a pass rush anyway, so I don't see Kaepernick getting those breakaway opportunities.

I'll still take SF in a very close one and would not be surprised if Atlanta wins.

There's a decent argument that says the real "empirical evidence" isn't win/loss record, but some metric like DVOA ... where the Falcons were 10th this season. Obviously, such stats aren't end all-be all ... the Seahawks were first in DVOA and they're at home right now thanks to the Falcons, but those kinds of stats absolutely play a role in betting lines.

The second reason is, as Electro mentioned, lines don't have nearly as much to do with who Vegas thinks will win as who Vegas thinks people are going to bet on. Last week, everyone watched the Falcons almost blow it, while the Niners just looked amazing. It's not necessarily very good judgment to assume this week will be the same, but many bettors will. Vegas knows they have to make SF a pretty heavy favorite just to be able to to get some action on the Atlanta side of the line, so as not to leave them totally exposed. Playoff lines often trend a little higher for this reason.

49ers-31
falcons-10

My problem with Atlanta is the same problem I always had with those Manning Colts "juggernauts," except they aren't even as good as those teams were.

I don't think Matt Ryan is a very good "big game" quarterback, dating back to his days at BC. It's why I didn't want Miami to take him #1 that year.

And I think the Falcons are mostly a soft dome team...as long as they're in their little dome with their little roof and there's no cold, rain or snow to get in their way, they can play their game and be competitive (and win).

That being said, they showed a lot more balls than I ever would've thought they had by going back down the field and scoring last week (though to screw up the kickoff after that...really?)...and that is the type of thing that can change a team's attitude and fortunes overnight. I expect a close game, but there is still a part of me that wouldn't be surprised to see Matt Ryan crap his pants against that SF defense and it ending up being 45-3 SF.

4/5 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote: And we've seen it from Manning before. We don't have to look any further than his second SB appearance.

I would beg you to watch that game again and see if you still stand by this.

You can call the following excuses if you want, but each of the following are all true:

On the first drive of the game on 3rd down Pierre Garcon drops a TD pass; Colts settle for a FG.

In the 2nd quarter up 10-3 Manning hits Garcon in stride wide open on 3rd down: drop. The pass was about 20-25 yards if he caught it and fell down. Based on where the DBs were it looked like Garcon very well could have taken it 70 yards to the house. Instead: punt.

Colts run three times at the end of the first half and let the Saints steal 3 points at the end of the half.

Saints open the 2nd half with an onside kick, likely due in no small part to the fact that they saw the first half and couldn't let Manning go up 17-6.

Colts miss a 50 yard FG.

Reggie Wayne slipped on his cut on the pick-six.

Reggie Wayne dropped a td in the last two minutes when the Colts were trying an unlikely comeback, down 14 with about one minute left.

If you do this with like 5 plays in Brady's career, he could easily be at six rings

durdencommatyler wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

EJ wrote:Its very tough to rank all the great QB's. I mean, Terry Bradshaw won 4 SBs. I certainly would'nt put him anywhere near the top of the list of all time great QBs.

Personally, I always thought Dan Marino was the best and would probably do well in any era. As 4/5 mentioned, he elevated some pretty questionable teams to the playoffs on a regular basis: consistently lacked a running game and decent defenses.

It's a tricky argument, for sure. I guess, it comes down to how highly you value championships. Peyton is going to the hall of fame. And he absolutely should. He's one of the smartest, accurate, dedicated and exciting players to watch. Especially in regular season play.

I never saw Marino play. I can't compare what he did in the post season to what I've seen Manning do. For me, if there is a down side to Peyton Manning, it's that he isn't clutch. He doesn't elevate his play when it mattes the most, in the post season. Was the same true of Marino? Regardless of the players surrounding him, did Marino get better, elevate himself, and do everything in his power to make as few mistakes a possible and put his team in a position to win?

Marino had exactly 1 1000 yard rusher (which isn't even that big of a deal in a 16 game schedule) in 17 years - he was pretty much on his own offensively. And he had a top 10 defense only 4 times.

Wow. So, he was the team. Impressive. I wish I would have been old enough to care and actually watch the guy play.

Mark Duper and Mark Clayton weren't exactly slouch WRs...their (career) numbers don't seem all that impressive compared to today's passing friendly game, but those two were awesome...but the second half of Marino's career was a personnel disaster...bad wideouts, bad RBs (Karim Abdul-Jabar SUCKED, and I don't care how many yards he rushed for), and they would have pieces on the defensive side of the ball but could never get a really good cohesive unit on the field. Still can't believe they lost to the Patriots in '85...they certainly would've put up more of a fight in that Super Bowl against Da Bears

MattA75 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

EJ wrote:Its very tough to rank all the great QB's. I mean, Terry Bradshaw won 4 SBs. I certainly would'nt put him anywhere near the top of the list of all time great QBs.

Personally, I always thought Dan Marino was the best and would probably do well in any era. As 4/5 mentioned, he elevated some pretty questionable teams to the playoffs on a regular basis: consistently lacked a running game and decent defenses.

It's a tricky argument, for sure. I guess, it comes down to how highly you value championships. Peyton is going to the hall of fame. And he absolutely should. He's one of the smartest, accurate, dedicated and exciting players to watch. Especially in regular season play.

I never saw Marino play. I can't compare what he did in the post season to what I've seen Manning do. For me, if there is a down side to Peyton Manning, it's that he isn't clutch. He doesn't elevate his play when it mattes the most, in the post season. Was the same true of Marino? Regardless of the players surrounding him, did Marino get better, elevate himself, and do everything in his power to make as few mistakes a possible and put his team in a position to win?

Marino had exactly 1 1000 yard rusher (which isn't even that big of a deal in a 16 game schedule) in 17 years - he was pretty much on his own offensively. And he had a top 10 defense only 4 times.

Wow. So, he was the team. Impressive. I wish I would have been old enough to care and actually watch the guy play.

Mark Duper and Mark Clayton weren't exactly slouch WRs...their (career) numbers don't seem all that impressive compared to today's passing friendly game, but those two were awesome...but the second half of Marino's career was a personnel disaster...bad wideouts, bad RBs (Karim Abdul-Jabar SUCKED, and I don't care how many yards he rushed for), and they would have pieces on the defensive side of the ball but could never get a really good cohesive unit on the field. Still can't believe they lost to the Patriots in '85...they certainly would've put up more of a fight in that Super Bowl against Da Bears

Especially since they were the only team to beat Da Bears that year. And, that Bears team was unbelievable.

Go Jets...because that's where my sweetie is going to be playing next year.

Lennay Kekua wrote:Go Jets...because that's where my sweetie is going to be playing next year.

You must be IHRM