Conquer Club

First of all, I agree that Joe Montana is the greatest of all quaterbacks ever to play. I hate Notre Dame. But he started his legacy in the 1979 Cotton Bowl. Notre Dame down 34-12 with 7:37 left in the game and Montana who started the 2nd half in the locker room because his body temperature got down to 96 degrees because of hypothermia. This game was known as the Chicken Soup Bowl because that is what they feed Joe while he was covered in blankets to get his body temperature back up. With no time left in the game Joe throws the winning touchdown with no time left on the clock.
Even when he spent his last couple of years with Kansas City he was effective as a 37 year old quaterback with comeback wins. Montana had the best pair of eyes than any quaterback ever. You watch game film of him and watch how he checked off on his primary and secondary recievers. Elway had a problem with with throwing interceptions because he had a gun for an arm and always thought he could needle in his passes. Granted Montana didn't have the strongest arm over Elway and Bradshaw but he saw the field better than them. And his decision making was way better. When it came to the clutch he is head and shoulders over Manning also and was way more mobile. Montana was just being gracious when he made the comment about Manning but those of us that watched him know better.
Last nights game just shows Manning time is up. Seattle challenged him to throw deep and he didn't even bother. Most of the time Seattle had 10 guys within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. Even before Mannings surgery there was question whether he could go 20+ yards on his throw, Seattle confirmed it. If Manning comes back next year Denver better invest in a Randy Moss player.

What evidence do you have that Manning couldn't physically throw the deep ball? The reason it was unsuccessful last night was not because of a lack of arm strength. It was because of consistent four-man pressure with seven in coverage. He threw one deep ball (a laser really) that was incomplete. The only throw that exhibited a lack of arm strength was an out that he underthrew to I think Eric Decker.

EDIT - I read this after I typed the above. This guy is an expert (although probably too new school for you and gannable). He's probably the football version of BBS.

Bill Barnwell wrote:Seattle didn’t stay in its traditional Cover 3 as much as I might have expected, especially during the first half, when it spent a fair amount of time in one-deep and two-deep zones with man-to-man on Denver’s outside receivers. With each coverage shell, the concept was the same: prevent the Broncos from completing anything downfield, disrupt their timing, force them into underneath passes and checkdowns, and prevent them from compiling yards after catch. The Broncos are a team built on gaining yards after catch and big plays, and Seattle denied them both.

thegreekdog wrote:Since you're done discussing with me, this is largely irrelevant, but there are advanced metrics that compare a player's statistics with that of his peers, essentially saying "X Player was Y better than others at his position in Year Z" and then comparing players based on that. So we can, in fact, compare people from different eras. That's how we know whether 2013 Denver was the best offense of all time - how much better were they than other 2013 teams? I know that is probably too modern for you, but such is life.

Here: http://grantland.com/features/a-tale-of-two-cities/

The problem with RGIII hype (and I would lump Kapernick, Wilson, and Luck in there as well) is manifold. First, people talk about two of these guys (Kapernick and RGIII) having physical tools that other quarterbacks don't have and those tools in and of themselves make those guys better than other guys. In other words, those people would rather have Kapernick because of his legs and arm strength because he can "learn" the other parts of the position. Second, three of those guys are running quarterbacks, not a one of whom has won a Super Bowl. Third, quarterback is not a position where young players succeed immediately precisely because it calls for a lot more than physical tools to win. Those gentlemen good all develop into outstanding quarterbacks, but right now they aren't and they weren't last year either. They need to develop decision-making and overall football intelligence to be put in the same stratosphere as the current crop of great quarterbacks (Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers). I think Wilson and Luck are the closest of the four. RGIII appears jittery. I don't know what to think about Kapernick.

LOL well at least you aren't patronizing and condescending
perhaps create your own cute formula to improve your CC play

gannable wrote:Anyone who watched Montana and Manning play knows Montana is the better QB. [...] And the competition was so much better during the 80's. [...] There are no great teams anymore. So yes the NFL was much better back then.

Some of the dumber statements I've ever read about Pro Football.
I watched Unitas, Starr, Namath, Staubach, Montana and more... I was in Pittsburgh for the "Immaculate Reception." The NFL players now are bigger, faster, stronger, quicker and smarter than ever. You can't actually compare the playing situations and abilities from different eras at all, it just doesn't work. There is no way to know how well Joe Montana would stack up against the monsters of today's gridiron. Get real. I love the old school NFL game, but times have changed.

This defensive performance was close to what the Baltimore Ravens did to the New York Giants back in 2000 season after demolishing the Raiders in Oakland for the AFC Championship. They were a wildcard road team that finished the year with a seven game streak. Oh yeah, Trent Dilfer was their QB and Ray Lewis was the Defensive Player of the Year & Super Bowl MVP.

gannable wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Since you're done discussing with me, this is largely irrelevant, but there are advanced metrics that compare a player's statistics with that of his peers, essentially saying "X Player was Y better than others at his position in Year Z" and then comparing players based on that. So we can, in fact, compare people from different eras. That's how we know whether 2013 Denver was the best offense of all time - how much better were they than other 2013 teams? I know that is probably too modern for you, but such is life.

Here: http://grantland.com/features/a-tale-of-two-cities/

The problem with RGIII hype (and I would lump Kapernick, Wilson, and Luck in there as well) is manifold. First, people talk about two of these guys (Kapernick and RGIII) having physical tools that other quarterbacks don't have and those tools in and of themselves make those guys better than other guys. In other words, those people would rather have Kapernick because of his legs and arm strength because he can "learn" the other parts of the position. Second, three of those guys are running quarterbacks, not a one of whom has won a Super Bowl. Third, quarterback is not a position where young players succeed immediately precisely because it calls for a lot more than physical tools to win. Those gentlemen good all develop into outstanding quarterbacks, but right now they aren't and they weren't last year either. They need to develop decision-making and overall football intelligence to be put in the same stratosphere as the current crop of great quarterbacks (Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers). I think Wilson and Luck are the closest of the four. RGIII appears jittery. I don't know what to think about Kapernick.

LOL well at least you aren't patronizing and condescending
perhaps create your own cute formula to improve your CC play

I'll get right on that.

oVo wrote:

gannable wrote:Anyone who watched Montana and Manning play knows Montana is the better QB. [...] And the competition was so much better during the 80's. [...] There are no great teams anymore. So yes the NFL was much better back then.

Some of the dumber statements I've ever read about Pro Football.
I watched Unitas, Starr, Namath, Staubach, Montana and more... I was in Pittsburgh for the "Immaculate Reception." The NFL players now are bigger, faster, stronger, quicker and smarter than ever. You can't actually compare the playing situations and abilities from different eras at all, it just doesn't work. There is no way to know how well Joe Montana would stack up against the monsters of today's gridiron. Get real. I love the old school NFL game, but times have changed.

This defensive performance was close to what the Baltimore Ravens did to the New York Giants back in 2000 season after demolishing the Raiders in Oakland for the AFC Championship. They were a wildcard road team that finished the year with a seven game streak. Oh yeah, Trent Dilfer was their QB and Ray Lewis was the Defensive Player of the Year & Super Bowl MVP.

I always look at the Giants-Pats Super Bowl as the measuring stick for how defenses can still be dominant against great offenses, but I think Seattle is the new standard bearer.

thegreekdog wrote:What evidence do you have that Manning couldn't physically throw the deep ball? The reason it was unsuccessful last night was not because of a lack of arm strength. It was because of consistent four-man pressure with seven in coverage. He threw one deep ball (a laser really) that was incomplete. The only throw that exhibited a lack of arm strength was an out that he underthrew to I think Eric Decker.

EDIT - I read this after I typed the above. This guy is an expert (although probably too new school for you and gannable). He's probably the football version of BBS.

Bill Barnwell wrote:Seattle didn’t stay in its traditional Cover 3 as much as I might have expected, especially during the first half, when it spent a fair amount of time in one-deep and two-deep zones with man-to-man on Denver’s outside receivers. With each coverage shell, the concept was the same: prevent the Broncos from completing anything downfield, disrupt their timing, force them into underneath passes and checkdowns, and prevent them from compiling yards after catch. The Broncos are a team built on gaining yards after catch and big plays, and Seattle denied them both.

There was rumor about that a few years ago. By the 3rd series everyone in the house I was watching the game in was saying throw it long just to stretch out the defense. The screen wasn't working, the dink 4 yard pass wasn't working, the running game was null and void. Watching the entire game we came to the conclusion Manning couldn't hit the long ball. Take a look at the the play by play of the game. He threw 11 passes deep and only one was caught and that turned into a fumble. Montana is still better.

He definitely had arm strength problems for a while after surgery (it's well documented). He's probably not a strong as he once was, but I don't think we can say "he can't throw the deep ball" since he's been able to throw the deep ball all year.

thegreekdog wrote:He definitely had arm strength problems for a while after surgery (it's well documented). He's probably not a strong as he once was, but I don't think we can say "he can't throw the deep ball" since he's been able to throw the deep ball all year.

The question is can you throw it deep with accuracy and hitting the reciever on the fly. I guess you also have to look at the recieving group you have and also how your line protects you. And as much as Manning recognizes the defensive set up and calls his audibles at the line it still comes down to executing the play. This is where Montana is ahead of everybody that has ever played the game at QB. And over the decades there has been many who have been great. The rules have changed over the decades. Could Montana have survived during the 50's when the game was much rougher, hard to say. Montana might have had durability problems. Watch some of the old NFL game films of that era, you were not down unless someone was on top of you. Of course most of the time defense back then was geared to stop the run first. But returning to the present with the way the recievers are protected now Montana might of had way better stats also.

It really is a bit startling in the preparation levels for the two teams. Seahawks simply came to play if they made any major mistakes it was covered up by the fact that Denver played horribly everywhere except stopping Lynch in the first half. It also didn't help Denver or hurt Seattle that whenever there was a bad break in the game, it seemed to end up in Seattle's favor.

Enjoyed it even more than superbowl XX

Thanks AoG for the solid recommendation.

Bandwagoning never felt so sweet.

Seattle dared Denver to "Go Deep?" There was no deep threat and it had nothing to do with Manning's arm strength. The problem was the Broncos' offensive line all game long.

Doh!

Considering the field position early in the game, the Broncos' defense did a decent job giving up field goals on short fields. The pass interference flag in the end zone on third and goal that led to the Seahawks' first TD was a good call. Lynch's TD allowed Seattle to play even looser and the kickoff return TD to open the second half sealed it.

Denver was awful in all aspects of the game and I give the Seattle defense credit for making that happen. Even a 30 year old Joe Montana at quarterback couldn't have bailed out the Broncos yesterday anywhere except gannable's imagination.

oVo wrote:Considering the field position early in the game, the Broncos' defense did a decent job giving up field goals on short fields. The pass interference flag in the end zone on third and goal that led to the Seahawks' first TD was a good call.

I thought that ball was uncatchable, but I didn't watch the replays.

oVo wrote: Even a 30 year old Joe Montana at quarterback couldn't have bailed out the Broncos yesterday anywhere except gannable's imagination.

Not to say Montana would of bailed the Broncos out but that would of been interesting to see.

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:Considering the field position early in the game, the Broncos' defense did a decent job giving up field goals on short fields. The pass interference flag in the end zone on third and goal that led to the Seahawks' first TD was a good call.

I thought that ball was uncatchable, but I didn't watch the replays.

I was flipping shit, mostly because I thought Wilson was out of the pocket (the replays they showed were just of Carter pushing Tate so I never saw if he was actually out or not).




Also, there's a post in the Broncos forum that goes over the last 15 Super Bowl winning QBs and their salaries. I think the only one over 10mil was 06 Peyton. I have to agree with the post's theory: that paying THAT much for a QB might not be worth it.

In all honesty, I kind of hope Manning retires so we can test out Oswiler and sign a lot of help on the defensive side (or maybe I'm still pissed from last night).

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:Considering the field position early in the game, the Broncos' defense did a decent job giving up field goals on short fields. The pass interference flag in the end zone on third and goal that led to the Seahawks' first TD was a good call.

I thought that ball was uncatchable, but I didn't watch the replays.

The penalty was there regardless, the defender was beaten and holding (flagrantly) or pass interference was an easy call.

I did find it curious when the Broncos finally scored on the final play of the 3rd Quarter. The Seahawk defender hit and was already wrapping up the receiver before the ball arrived. No flag was thrown, so it's a good thing he made the catch.

Army of GOD wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:Considering the field position early in the game, the Broncos' defense did a decent job giving up field goals on short fields. The pass interference flag in the end zone on third and goal that led to the Seahawks' first TD was a good call.

I thought that ball was uncatchable, but I didn't watch the replays.

I was flipping shit, mostly because I thought Wilson was out of the pocket (the replays they showed were just of Carter pushing Tate so I never saw if he was actually out or not).

Never mind, for whatever reason I had the rule mixed up. PI still applies.

Also, I get irrationally pissed off when someone suggests Russell "hustle and bustle, man muscle" Wilson should've won MVP. Stupid people like that are why the league is moving in the direction it is (QBs are gods, f*ck defense).

I'm actually pretty happy for Malcolm Smith.

Army of GOD wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:Considering the field position early in the game, the Broncos' defense did a decent job giving up field goals on short fields. The pass interference flag in the end zone on third and goal that led to the Seahawks' first TD was a good call.

I thought that ball was uncatchable, but I didn't watch the replays.

I was flipping shit, mostly because I thought Wilson was out of the pocket (the replays they showed were just of Carter pushing Tate so I never saw if he was actually out or not).




Also, there's a post in the Broncos forum that goes over the last 15 Super Bowl winning QBs and their salaries. I think the only one over 10mil was 06 Peyton. I have to agree with the post's theory: that paying THAT much for a QB might not be worth it.

In all honesty, I kind of hope Manning retires so we can test out Oswiler and sign a lot of help on the defensive side (or maybe I'm still pissed from last night).

Barnwell doesn't actually come out and say that in his article(s) but you have to wonder if that's the way to go. I think (but have not proven because I don't care that much) that even if Wilson was making better money, Seattle could have signed those two defensive ends, mostly because their secondary with the exception of Earl Thomas are making peanuts.

Grantland is awesome and one of my favorite parts of ESPN.com.

Bollocks.

Serbia wrote:Grantland is awesome and one of my favorite parts of ESPN.com.

Bollocks.

Yeah, it pains me to agree with you because I fucking hate Bill Simmons.

thegreekdog wrote:

Serbia wrote:Grantland is awesome and one of my favorite parts of ESPN.com.

Bollocks.

Yeah, it pains me to agree with you because I fucking hate Bill Simmons.

>hating Bill Simmons