Orton's Arm Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Just curious.....who do you think the other two were? Steel Curtain of the '70s and Bears of '85.
Orton's Arm Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Stay in your little world of wonder John. If YOU choose to take my words and run with them to continue an argument then that's your issue, not mine. I have again offered a lot of factual evidence, however you have added virtually nothing in the way of football knowledge. If you ask me, you read this and felt like you needed to be part of the action. I don't blame you John, numerous people have done the same throughout the years. I'm used to it, and if it fills your excitement meter, even better. I see there's a lot of subjectivity in these posts... all good. So lets just do this straight up head to head ok? since 1970, the Top rated O and Top rated D played against each other 3 times. Each time the Top rated D won the SB: 1978 Pittsburgh defeated Dallas 1984 San Francisco defeated Miami 1990 New York defeated Buffalo There now John... see that is factual. Subjectivity is removed. I don't need to jump on somebody else's bandwagon to try to act knowledgeable or witty. Just the facts... I have provided them, you have not. Your opinion is yours and yours alone. You two can pretend to be oblivious to them, but they remain constant. So... now here comes the blatant disregard for any facts I have provided; and you'll drone on and on about "I don't see your point, blah, blah, blah" Again, all good. Check that head to head post above. I'm sure you'll try to find some "witty" response, but we all know what it really is. If I understand your point correctly, you're arguing that a team which wants to win the Super Bowl should prioritize defense first, and franchise QB a (distant?) second. If that is indeed your argument--which I'm not sure of--it seems odd for you to cite the '49ers Super Bowl victory in 1984 over the Dolphins. Granted, the 49ers had the #1-ranked defense that year. But they also had Joe Montana. As for the 1978 Super Bowl when Pittsburgh beat Dallas--the Steelers had Terry Bradshaw. I realize Bradshaw's regular season stats aren't exactly the stuff of legends. But he played at a much higher level in the postseason than the regular season. That Super Bowl also represented a game in which both teams were getting franchise-level play from their QBs, regardless of whatever Bradshaw had or hadn't done in the regular season. One could make the argument that when both teams have franchise-level QBs, those two players will cancel each other out. That would leave the game to be decided by players at other positions. The Super Bowl between the Colts and the Saints was like that: Manning and Brees played at about the same level as each other for that game--the outcome of which was decided by the Saints defense playing better than the Colts defense. (And probably also by the Colts offensive line not playing well enough.) But the only reason that was the case is because both teams brought franchise QBs to the table. If for example one team had had Peyton Manning and the other had featured Trent Edwards, whichever of those two teams had Manning would have won. More generally, having a franchise QB gives you a very solid edge over any team that doesn't have one. If you want to beat a team with a franchise QB, and if you don't have one yourself, you have to outplay them by a lot in some other aspect of the game to make up for your lack of a franchise QB. The deeper into the playoffs you go, the harder that is to do. If it's your good defense + your Trent Dilfer of a QB against someone else's franchise QB + lousy defense, then you stand a good chance! But teams like the Steelers and the Packers have good defenses and franchise QBs. If you face a team like that, will your own defense be enough better to make up for your disadvantage at QB? Unless your defense is Ravens of 2000 good, the answer is clearly no.
Rayzer32 Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 well, obviously this one wasn't working so i thought i'd change the subject because really no one was getting any where with this discussion, which essentially went like this (and pardon if i paraphrase just a bit): you: i can't comprehend what i've written, but i'm right. most everyone else: you: i'm still not wrong. most everyone else: right, and i've lent no worth to this thread. jw This sums this entire useless thread up perfectly. A defense can hold a team to 3 points any given day but if you don't have an offense that can score, then what? Let's look at this: Top five scoring offenses this year. 1. New England - Brady 2. San Diego - Rivers 3. Philadelphia - Vick 4. Indianapolis - Manning 5. Atlanta - Ryan Basically all franchise QBs, except maybe Vick, although I would take him. Bottom five in scoring 32. Carolina - Moore, Clausen = suck, rookie who sucked 31. Cleveland - Delhomme, McCoy = suck, rookie who may have some upside 30. Miami - Henne, Pennington = suck, suck 29. Minnesota - Favre, Jackson = Washed up, pretty much sucks 28. Buffalo - Fitzpatrick, Edwards = mediocre, suck Only one franchise QB in that list (Favre) and he was well past his prime. It's a common theme in the offensive statistics that teams with good QBs are at the top of the league and the teams with garbage are at the bottom. Kinda like defensive stats. YOU NEED BOTH!!!
Bill from NYC Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Steel Curtain of the '70s and Bears of '85. The superbowl Chiefs belong in this conversation.
McD Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 If I understand your point correctly, you're arguing that a team which wants to win the Super Bowl should prioritize defense first, and franchise QB a (distant?) second. If that is indeed your argument--which I'm not sure of--it seems odd for you to cite the '49ers Super Bowl victory in 1984 over the Dolphins. Granted, the 49ers had the #1-ranked defense that year. But they also had Joe Montana. As for the 1978 Super Bowl when Pittsburgh beat Dallas--the Steelers had Terry Bradshaw. I realize Bradshaw's regular season stats aren't exactly the stuff of legends. But he played at a much higher level in the postseason than the regular season. That Super Bowl also represented a game in which both teams were getting franchise-level play from their QBs, regardless of whatever Bradshaw had or hadn't done in the regular season. One could make the argument that when both teams have franchise-level QBs, those two players will cancel each other out. That would leave the game to be decided by players at other positions. The Super Bowl between the Colts and the Saints was like that: Manning and Brees played at about the same level as each other for that game--the outcome of which was decided by the Saints defense playing better than the Colts defense. (And probably also by the Colts offensive line not playing well enough.) But the only reason that was the case is because both teams brought franchise QBs to the table. If for example one team had had Peyton Manning and the other had featured Trent Edwards, whichever of those two teams had Manning would have won. More generally, having a franchise QB gives you a very solid edge over any team that doesn't have one. If you want to beat a team with a franchise QB, and if you don't have one yourself, you have to outplay them by a lot in some other aspect of the game to make up for your lack of a franchise QB. The deeper into the playoffs you go, the harder that is to do. If it's your good defense + your Trent Dilfer of a QB against someone else's franchise QB + lousy defense, then you stand a good chance! But teams like the Steelers and the Packers have good defenses and franchise QBs. If you face a team like that, will your own defense be enough better to make up for your disadvantage at QB? Unless your defense is Ravens of 2000 good, the answer is clearly no. I think they should strive for both, BUT #1 defense has beaten those #1 offenses every time they've played. Everyone likes to just dismiss that though, so all good. You make a "case" for Montana vs the Fish in '84. Fair enough, but you and I both know Terry Bradsahw isn't and never should've been considered a Hall of Famer let alone a "franchise QB"... Stats below: Att. Comp. Pct. Yds. TD Int Rating Career Total 3901 2025 51.9 27,989 212 210 70.9 FYI... Losman and Edwards BOTH have higher QB ratings than Bradshaw... each just over 75%, but I digress.... http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.aspx?PlayerId=31&tab=Stats These are WORSE than Fitz by a WIDE margin... give Fitz that D and see what he can do. And, Bradshaw beat who at QB for Dallas in that game? Roger Staubach, a bonafide HoF'er and franchise QB. Also, no mention of the Jeff Hosteletler led Giants beating our own Jim Kelly and the Bills in 1990. So in 3 head-to-head meetings, you point out that 3 bonafide HoF QB's (Staubach, Marino, Kelly) lost to 1 bonafide HoF and franchise QB in Montana, a suspect HoF (and hardly franchise) QB in Bradshaw, and a career backup in Hostetler... OK. My point exactly. I won't argue a point about a bonafide franchise QB being a great thing to have... that's a no **** statement, but as you see above you don't NEED one to win. To date the best D has beaten the best O head to head... there it is.. it's fact. There's no subjectivity to it. Ok away from the "debate" As for this year, it will be awesome to see who wins out. You have two of the best D's: #1 Pitt and #2 GB in ppg, and two of the best QB's playing: #3 Rodgers and #5 Big Ben QB rating speaking. Offense are similar too: #10 GB and #12 Pitt in ppg. So this looks like a damned good matchup all around. What will win it? ST's... a turnover.. crucial penalty... coaches? This sums this entire useless thread up perfectly. A defense can hold a team to 3 points any given day but if you don't have an offense that can score, then what? Riddle me this... if a team scores 32 points a game will they ALWAYS win? Now this... if a team doesn't allow a single point in a game will they EVER lose? Jeopardy tune playing in background...
CosmicBills Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 That monkey fight in your head must be a wonderful show. I bet one wears a tutu. The lack of logical reasoning displayed in this thread is spectacular. It's like a car wreck on the freeway -- you don't want to look, but you have to look.
McD Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 That monkey fight in your head must be a wonderful show. I bet one wears a tutu. The lack of logical reasoning displayed in this thread is spectacular. It's like a car wreck on the freeway -- you don't want to look, but you have to look. Just like the accident on the freeway, most people looking aren't paying attention to the road. Kind of like a LOT of people on this thread. Pay attention and keep your eyes where they should be so you can concentrate and think logically. No response to the straight up head to head #1 D vs #1 O?? It's pretty clear, however you ignore it, lol... yep that's the way to do it!
thebug Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Just like the accident on the freeway, most people looking aren't paying attention to the road. Kind of like a LOT of people on this thread. Pay attention and keep your eyes where they should be so you can concentrate and think logically. No response to the straight up head to head #1 D vs #1 O?? It's pretty clear, however you ignore it, lol... yep that's the way to do it! I'm guessing the "D" scored every point in all those games?
CosmicBills Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Just like the accident on the freeway, most people looking aren't paying attention to the road. Kind of like a LOT of people on this thread. Pay attention and keep your eyes where they should be so you can concentrate and think logically. No response to the straight up head to head #1 D vs #1 O?? It's pretty clear, however you ignore it, lol... yep that's the way to do it! No response to the 3 times out 45 that match up occurred? It's such a small statistical anomaly that it's irrelevant. It's even more worthless because one of those 3 times was in 78 -- before the chuck rule was implemented. The other 2 times occurred before the rest of the more modern rule changes were put into place that limited the defensive backs' abilities to stop the passing game. Oh, and of course as was pointed out above, 2 of those teams you mentioned were led by Hall of Fame QBs. The other time came down to a missed 47 yard field goal that, had it gone through, would have destroyed your theory. So yeah, no response to that worthless post. Edited January 27, 2011 by tgreg99
McD Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 I'm guessing the "D" scored every point in all those games? Uh oh... we're reaching now aren't we? Lol... No response to the 3 times out 45 that match up occurred? It's such a small statistical anomaly that it's irrelevant. It's even more worthless because one of those 3 times was in 78 -- before the chuck rule was implemented. The other 2 times occurred before the rest of the more modern rule changes were put into place that limited the defensive backs' abilities to stop the passing game. Oh, and of course as was pointed out above, 2 of those teams you pointed out were led by Hall of Fame QBs. The other time came down to a missed field goal that, had it gone through, would have destroyed your theory. So yeah, no response to that worthless post. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, eh man? All of a sudden it's circumstantial...? "well if X woulda done this different, and Z did this, THEN THAT might have happened. Look suck it up. The Bills lost the '90 game, be a man and admit it. We lost, we got beat. Check Bradshaw's "Hof" stats... the ONLY reason he's there is because he was surrounded by greatness. As I pointed oout both Losman and Edwards have better ratings than Bradshaw. He's no true HoF'er, he BARELY had a 50% completion %. So, if you're sayinbg he IS a HoF'er then you should have NO issues with Fitz... right? So this "anaomoly" happened only 3 times... it doesn't give you much to go on... OK... no big deal, BUT it does show that D wins. Trust you me... if it were the other way around and the stats favored you, you'd be jumping up and down in your dirty skivvies showing these "worthless" stats. Lol... you're fading fast... Guess I have to post this again... since most of you like to deal with absolutes. Riddle me this... if a team scores 32 points a game will they ALWAYS win? Now this... if a team doesn't allow a single point in a game will they EVER lose? Jeopardy tune STILL playing in background...
K Gun Special Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Uh oh... we're reaching now aren't we? Lol... Coulda, woulda, shoulda, eh man? All of a sudden it's circumstantial...? "well if X woulda done this different, and Z did this, THEN THAT might have happened. Look suck it up. The Bills lost the '90 game, be a man and admit it. We lost, we got beat. Check Bradshaw's "Hof" stats... the ONLY reason he's there is because he was surrounded by greatness. As I pointed oout both Losman and Edwards have better ratings than Bradshaw. He's no true HoF'er, he BARELY had a 50% completion %. So, if you're sayinbg he IS a HoF'er then you should have NO issues with Fitz... right? So this "anaomoly" happened only 3 times... it doesn't give you much to go on... OK... no big deal, BUT it does show that D wins. Trust you me... if it were the other way around and the stats favored you, you'd be jumping up and down in your dirty skivvies showing these "worthless" stats. Lol... you're fading fast... Guess I have to post this again... since most of you like to deal with absolutes. Riddle me this... if a team scores 32 points a game will they ALWAYS win? Now this... if a team doesn't allow a single point in a game will they EVER lose? Jeopardy tune STILL playing in background... Terry Bradshaw? he had top 10 numbers for his era and won a number of super bowls....tell me how that doesn't make you a HOFer???? Bc a QB over 30 years later in a different era and rules has better numbers? He was surrounded by greatness but give me some examples of HOF QBs who didnt have great players around them..... You should also realize that its not the hall of stats, which you clearly dont bc of your post, and many players with suspect stats are in the HOFs of all sports. This thread is reaching a new level of ridiculousness.
gumby Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 This thread is the very definition of pretzel logic.
CosmicBills Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Uh oh... we're reaching now aren't we? Lol... Coulda, woulda, shoulda, eh man? All of a sudden it's circumstantial...? "well if X woulda done this different, and Z did this, THEN THAT might have happened. Look suck it up. The Bills lost the '90 game, be a man and admit it. We lost, we got beat. Check Bradshaw's "Hof" stats... the ONLY reason he's there is because he was surrounded by greatness. As I pointed oout both Losman and Edwards have better ratings than Bradshaw. He's no true HoF'er, he BARELY had a 50% completion %. So, if you're sayinbg he IS a HoF'er then you should have NO issues with Fitz... right? So this "anaomoly" happened only 3 times... it doesn't give you much to go on... OK... no big deal, BUT it does show that D wins. Trust you me... if it were the other way around and the stats favored you, you'd be jumping up and down in your dirty skivvies showing these "worthless" stats. Lol... you're fading fast... Guess I have to post this again... since most of you like to deal with absolutes. Riddle me this... if a team scores 32 points a game will they ALWAYS win? Now this... if a team doesn't allow a single point in a game will they EVER lose? Jeopardy tune STILL playing in background... It's also clear you've never seen Bradshaw actually play. If you had, you'd realize exactly how good the guy was when it counted. You'd also realize that the league Bradshaw played in was very different than the pass-happy, high scoring league that exists now. Oh, but I'm not the one ignoring the stats. You are. But that's cool. It's now clear you're nothing but a troll. Not even a fun one anymore. You have no leg to stand on. You've given nothing in the way of facts other than reaching for .07% of all the Super Bowls played. Look at the more modern era, the same one that has been referenced over and over again in this thread yet you continue to ignore. In the past 14 Super Bowls (I would argue only 10 of those are relevant to today's NFL) there have been 10 QBs who've won. Of those 10, 7 of them are sure fire hall of famers and "franchise QBs". 2 of the remaining 3 played at or above Pro Bowl level during the championship run. The remaining one (Dilfer) played for a team with arguably the greatest defense ever assembled in the modern era. So, 1 times out of 10 you can say it's possible to win a Super Bowl without having a marquee QB leading the team. 1 time out of 10. That's what you're arguing for. How that equates to: "Defense wins.... PERIOD!" is beyond me. But, as I said, it's clear you're nothing but a troll. Or at least I hope you are. Otherwise I hope that you don't work in an industry that demands logical reasoning or the ability to put a coherent and compelling argument down on paper. Because clearly you lack those skills. You even lack the skills to comprehend that you LACK those skills. That's a scary combo. Edited January 27, 2011 by tgreg99
Mr. WEO Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Uh oh... we're reaching now aren't we? Lol... Coulda, woulda, shoulda, eh man? All of a sudden it's circumstantial...? "well if X woulda done this different, and Z did this, THEN THAT might have happened. Look suck it up. The Bills lost the '90 game, be a man and admit it. We lost, we got beat. Check Bradshaw's "Hof" stats... the ONLY reason he's there is because he was surrounded by greatness. As I pointed oout both Losman and Edwards have better ratings than Bradshaw. He's no true HoF'er, he BARELY had a 50% completion %. So, if you're sayinbg he IS a HoF'er then you should have NO issues with Fitz... right? So this "anaomoly" happened only 3 times... it doesn't give you much to go on... OK... no big deal, BUT it does show that D wins. Trust you me... if it were the other way around and the stats favored you, you'd be jumping up and down in your dirty skivvies showing these "worthless" stats. Lol... you're fading fast... Guess I have to post this again... since most of you like to deal with absolutes. Riddle me this... if a team scores 32 points a game will they ALWAYS win? Now this... if a team doesn't allow a single point in a game will they EVER lose? Jeopardy tune STILL playing in background... Yeah, you've been reaching for many pages. Claiming that Bradshaw doesn't belong in the HOF proves you are, in a football sense, intellectually bankrupt. Or maybe you never saw those Steelers teams play--although you seem old enough. Pointing out that defenses that allow no points scored always win exposes the empty closet that houses your (totally unoriginal argument that) "defense wins championships". The obvious and fatal flaw in such a silly point is that NO defenses allow zero points to be scored always, whereas the best offensive teams per year routinely average 30 or more points per game. The only absolute is the most of us can't deal with is the monotony of your poorly argued posts.
McD Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 Terry Bradshaw? he had top 10 numbers for his era and won a number of super bowls....tell me how that doesn't make you a HOFer???? Bc a QB over 30 years later in a different era and rules has better numbers? He was surrounded by greatness but give me some examples of HOF QBs who didnt have great players around them..... You should also realize that its not the hall of stats, which you clearly dont bc of your post, and many players with suspect stats are in the HOFs of all sports. This thread is reaching a new level of ridiculousness. Bradshaw had a defense LOADED with HoF defensive players and Offensive weapons. When you have an O with 2 HoF WR's a HoF RB and a HoF Center to anchor the line... damn, you need to be better that EVERYONE in your Era. Then lets look at the other side of the ball shall we... Joe Greene, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert Mel Blount... nice core of D there... you think he played "behind in many games"? Bradshaw to his credit had two good SB appearances, but two aweful ones to boot. And the road he took to get there he put up massive numbers like 86 yds 0 TD's and 1 Int. I think he averaged about 150 yds 1.5 TD and 2.5 Int's in the games just to get TO the SB... Yep, he sure LED them there... lol. Thank you for your post to add to the ridiculousness, your opinion I don't mind, but you're trying to pass that info on as fact. I'm going fact on Bradshaw, but I can see your claims on rules changes, but I'll still respectfully refute his greatness. Yeah, you've been reaching for many pages. Claiming that Bradshaw doesn't belong in the HOF proves you are, in a football sense, intellectually bankrupt. Or maybe you never saw those Steelers teams play--although you seem old enough. Pointing out that defenses that allow no points scored always win exposes the empty closet that houses your (totally unoriginal argument that) "defense wins championships". The obvious and fatal flaw in such a silly point is that NO defenses allow zero points to be scored always, whereas the best offensive teams per year routinely average 30 or more points per game. The only absolute is the most of us can't deal with is the monotony of your poorly argued posts. Bradshaw rode the coattails of those teams, plain and simple. The man had mediocre regular season numbers and only two good (very good) post season games... his last two SB's. Now any given Sunday a guy or team can flourish, but Bradshaw never LED his team to those games on his arm or skills. That D, those two WR's the O-line, and running game he had took them there... Bradshaw MANAGED hose games far more than he LED them.
CosmicBills Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Bradshaw rode the coattails of those teams, plain and simple. The man had mediocre regular season numbers and only two good (very good) post season games... his last two SB's. Now any given Sunday a guy or team can flourish, but Bradshaw never LED his team to those games on his arm or skills. That D, those two WR's the O-line, and running game he had took them there... Bradshaw MANAGED hose games far more than he LED them. Be honest. How many times did you watch Bradshaw play. On film or live? Full games?
McD Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 Pointing out that defenses that allow no points scored always win exposes the empty closet that houses your (totally unoriginal argument that) "defense wins championships". Lol... I didn't say that, but ys it is insinuated, and in the head to head comparison, Im NOT WRONG! The obvious and fatal flaw in such a silly point is that NO defenses allow zero points to be scored always, whereas the best offensive teams per year routinely average 30 or more points per game. The only absolute is the most of us can't deal with is the monotony of your poorly argued posts. Read bolded. You all talk about absolutes... I dontr believe in them, BUT to amuse you I added some... All I ask is you answer the question with two words... (hint: yes & no are your two choices) Riddle me this... if a team scores 32 points a game will they ALWAYS win? ___________ Now this... if a team doesn't allow a single point in a game will they EVER lose? ____________ Be honest. How many times did you watch Bradshaw play. On film or live? Full games? Probably a handful live. Why...? Are his incompletions somehow better in person?
McD Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 Anyway... this isn't about Bradshaw (nice job getting away from answering the simplest of questions though, lol).
Mr. WEO Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Read bolded. You all talk about absolutes... I dontr believe in them, BUT to amuse you I added some... All I ask is you answer the question with two words... (hint: yes & no are your two choices) Riddle me this... if a team scores 32 points a game will they ALWAYS win? ___________ Now this... if a team doesn't allow a single point in a game will they EVER lose? ____________ Probably a handful live. Why...? Are his incompletions somehow better in person? I like how you take two or three posts to respond to one. Part of the entertainment value (the only value) of your responses. Anyway, if a defense allows no points, their team would lose 2-0 if the only score is an opposing safety.
McD Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 I like how you take two or three posts to respond to one. Part of the entertainment value (the only value) of your responses. Anyway, if a defense allows no points, their team would lose 2-0 if the only score is an opposing safety. Nice attempt at going AROUND a question, but it's not that easy... you see AGAIN you refuse to follow directions. Please reread and answer accordingly... I'll BOLD the items you evidently tried to go around so everyone can see it. Riddle me this... if a team scores 32 points a game will they ALWAYS win? ___________ Now this... if a team doesn't allow a single point in a game will they EVER lose? ____________ There's still only "yes" and "no" (or a direvitive thereof) as possible answers. Anyway, if a defense allows no points, their team would lose 2-0 if the only score is an opposing safety. Isn't that a defensive play BTW...??? Damn, those D's are good!
Recommended Posts