The 2009-2010 NFL Season: General News & Discussion Thread

[darklighter1]

I don't get you guys. I really don't. Must be a mid western/ sadistic pleasure/ Bears fan thing cause I'm sick to death of Watching Detroit and Dallas every Thanksgiving. But enjoy!

[¡ñ±£¿®∆L Ф¶†ïς@п]

It's a non-debate. Old v. new. Tradition v. televisation. Something shinier v. something reliable. Let Detriot have Thanksgiving games v. let's puinsh them for being so awful and never give them a prime-time game until we see fit.

Just let it be. You don't have to watch them, but to just snap a decades-old tradition for something snazzier makes just as little sense as it does appealing to a more "marquee" matchup that has no certainty of being more "thrilling" and/or more "entertaining".

[Skinny Bastard]

From what I hear, Fisher has never been "big" on the subject of Vince Young...

How much fun was it watching Vince Young beat Matt Leinart in the final minutes of a game... AGAIN! LOOOOOL

They flashed to Leinart on the sideline as Young drove the Titans 99 yards to a touchdown and you could see it on his face... "not again". What a fun game to watch... almost as much fun as the UT / A&M game....

[Drew]

LOL... yeah dude. I didn't watch the game, but when I heard about it and heard that Lienart was playing on the other side, it was funny as hell. Mainly because I remember watching that Rose Bowl so intensely and rooting so much for UT, and it was just great to see VY trump ML again. lol

[¡ñ±£¿®∆L Ф¶†ïς@п]

In my weekly early trawlings and perusing of NFL blogs to recap the action, I still find the most concise, effective, and enjoyable features rountinely come the like of Yahoo!'s NFL-centric sports blog. It's great. This was an especially intriguing article for me, as I've been in-tune with this decade's football sporadically, at best, yet I know of the greatest that is (was) the best at their positions in the moment.

The 10 best NFL players of the last decade

[iframe]http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdo ... nfl,205551[/iframe]

[Drew]

I don't understand how Manning can be considered number one over Brady.

Their numbers are comparable (with the exception that Brady was hurt for that one whole year, and didn't play much in 2000). That gives Peyton four years of time to add to his numbers (he came in the league 2 years prior to Brady) which is why the totals are much higher for him.

Colts are 112 - 43 in that span, with Manning playing the whole time.

Pats are 109 - 46 in that same span (with their worst record, 5-11, coming when Brady didn't play much at all)

Glaring difference?

The fact that the Pats have won three superbowls to the Colt's one.

And I would argue that with Harrison (considering they haven't won a superbowl with Moss) on the Colts, Manning has had a better group of receivers in that same span.

So I just don't understand how Manning could be considered better than Brady. In my opinion, he's had a better receiving core for the majority of his career, and played almost 4 full seasons more than Brady...both of which speak to the slight statistical superiority. The colt's record is a little better, but Manning has been relatively healthy that whole time and Brady didn't play almost two full seasons...where almost 35% of their losses came from (16/46)

And Brady has led his team to four superbowls (winning three) and Manning has only been to one (which he won). If you don't count the two years Brady was not really a factor in the team...this means he's led his team to the superbowl 4 times in 8 years....half of the year's he's been healthy his team has gone to the superbowl. Manning has been playing for 12 years and only made it there one time... He's only even made it to the conference championship twice. And they've had similiar records in that span (with the Colts actually have a better one) so it's not like the team talent levels are significantly different, Brady just more consistently wins when it counts.

I don't really know how everyone else judges quarterbacks, but I'll take a little less numbers and 3 rings over a slighty better record, better numbers, and 1 ring any day of the week.

[Skinny Bastard]

any such ratings are always subjective anyway.
As for me, I put Manning number one because his SNL hosting was AWSOME

[¡ñ±£¿®∆L Ф¶†ïς@п]

That's a good analysis of it, Drew. If I wanted to offer a counter-point to your argument, it's that the Patriots for the better (early) part of the decade, had a great defense with longevity. The Colts' have had a good defense off-and-on, but Peyton Manning runs that offense. You can say that having Wayne, Harrison, and Clark gives Manning better receiving options, and along with Edgerrin, a better balance, but just take a sampling from this year. Without Harrison, without Edge, but with a diminished ground game led by platoon back Addai (who is great with scoring TDs, but his longest run this year was 13 yards, up until that game against the Pats), Manning is doing more than Brady, but with less. He's turned two rookie receivers (Garcon, 2nd year, and Collie, 1st year) into viable downfield options.

Brady has the best "underrated" receiver in the game with Welker, a hybrid receiver that has a higher catch % than the best TEs out there. And Moss, arguably the best reciever of the 00's behind Marvin Harrison, and on equal-footing with vintage TO. They don't him "the Freak" for nothing.

AND, if you read the article from the previous page, Belichick and Brady apparently have the almighty cosmic force of Voltron as a running game! Who can top that?! Well, as it is, enough 'legit' teams can, as the Patriots' have more losses this season right now than the Bengals', which would be a bet nobody other Ochocinco would have cashed in on. While their (now young) defense and offensive line have let them down more often than in prior seasons, The Pats have more to work with than the Colts (this season, though).

It's a subjective matter, of course, but just because it's a 3-to-1 difference in rings, that doesn't mean Brady is that many tiers higher than Manning. Two of those rings that Brady achieved was because he had a league defense ranked in the top-4 overall both times. The one time he had "elevated" receiving options and finally lived up to his hype by throwing 50 touchdowns in one season, he ultimately fell to Manning's kid brother.

One final point: Manning means everything to the Colts, moreso than Edgerrin, Dungy, Harrison, or a solid defense. Whenever you face Manning, you have to overcome a mountain. But when Tom Brady went down last season, they supplanted him with Matt Cassel, a quarterback "that hadn't started a football game since he was a senior in high school". They missed a beat early on, yet with McDaniels' offensive scheming, and Belichick's devios mind, the Pats still managed to accomplish an 11-5 record, very respectable, but even moreso with a relatively "unproven backup". This is to reinforce that the Pats success is more dependent on coach Belichick than A-#1 QB Tom Brady, while on the other hand, even though Manning lost a significant portion of his familiarity around him over the course of his past 3 seasons, he's still led his Colts to numerous consecutive postseason berths, and has already achieved the feat this season, when most preseason pundits thought he would struggle with rookie head coach, Caldwell.

The face (brains) of the Pats' oveall success is directly tied to Bill Belichick. The success of the Colts, however, resides, squarely on the shoulders of Peyton Manning. He is an all-world player, perhaps the best of this decade, bar-none, who had the misfortune of never having a dependable defense to help him, and never really having a solution on how to beat either the Steelers or the Chargers in the postseason.

[Skinny Bastard]

and he fucking rocked it on SNL.... :p

[¡ñ±£¿®∆L Ф¶†ïς@п]

and he fucking rocked it on SNL.... :p

"Why is that door open?!"