Buftex Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 One thing to consider in Elway's defense: none of his first three SB trips would have happened if he hadn't carried those teams there. I'd compare those '80s Broncos squads to Buffalo's '92 team -- we didn't even win the division, needed a historic "Comeback" to get out of the wildcard round, and were badly overmatched against the Cowboys in SB XXVII. Elway wasn't to blame for letting Simms complete 22 of 25 passes, or being shredded by Doug Williams or the Montana-to-Rice combo. (Combined halftime scores of those last two games: 62-13, with no defensive touchdowns.) Just my opinion... and FWIW, I don't even like Elway. Yes, I agree. I like Elway a lot (my favorite non-Bills player in the last 20 years), there is no way those early Broncos teams would have gotten that far without him. The talent around him on offense was pretty marginal. He was the Broncos only weapon.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 No, he threw an early pick, while being whacked in the head by a Patriot blitzer. All season that would have been a personal foul.. Actually, it wasn't a penalty two weeks earlier. On the infamous "tuck" play, Charles Woodson smacked Brady in the head. No flag.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Actually, it wasn't a penalty two weeks earlier. On the infamous "tuck" play, Charles Woodson smacked Brady in the head. No flag. Fine, you win. They both should have been called penalties.
tennesseeboy Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 Gotta go with Doug Williams as the best one game qb. Facing legendary Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway, Williams engineered a 42-10 rout, in which the Redskins set an NFL record by scoring five touchdowns in the second quarter. Williams completed 18 of 29 passes for 340 yards, with four TD passes, and was named Super Bowl MVP. from wikipedia
Lori Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Actually, it wasn't a penalty two weeks earlier. On the infamous "tuck" play, Charles Woodson smacked Brady in the head. No flag. But that was a fumble, not a pass attempt.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Fine, you win. They both should have been called penalties. Where did I say that? Both weren't called penalties because the refs typically let 'em play come January.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Where did I say that? Both weren't called penalties because the refs typically let 'em play come January. That's a bullspit excuse. A penalty isn't called because they "let 'em play?" You mean like the AFCCG between the Pats and Colts?
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 That's a bullspit excuse. A penalty isn't called because they "let 'em play?" Depends on the penalty. They usually let the ticky-tack stuff (minor slaps to the head, incidental contact in the defensive backfield) slide. You mean like the AFCCG between the Pats and Colts? Which one?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Sorry but Vrabel's bashing of Warner's head/helmet was not "ticky-tack" even though it might have been "incidental," whereas Woodson's swipe of Brady's helmet was truly "ticky-tack." But both should have been called, and at least the head shot to Warner should have been. As for the AFCCG, I'm talking about 2003. But after this past AFCCG, I've read more than a few posts by Pats fans who felt they were robbed by the refs because of the Hobbs PI call. That was pure comedy.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Sorry but Vrabel's bashing of Warner's head/helmet was not "ticky-tack" even though it might have been "incidental," whereas Woodson's swipe of Brady's helmet was truly "ticky-tack." But both should have been called, and at least the head shot to Warner should have been. Take the blinders off, MDB. They were the same exact penalty - an unintentional slap to the head of the QB by a blitzer on the way to a sack. Frankly, I'm glad crap like that doesn't get called too much in the playoffs (although the refs did manage to call it against Tully Banta-Cain on the Colts' winning drive last Sunday). But after this past AFCCG, I've read more than a few posts by Pats fans who felt they were robbed by the refs because of the Hobbs PI call. That was pure comedy. It's more than just the Hobbs penalty (which was wrong, as there was no contact). The Banta-Cain roughing penalty shouldn't have been called, Caldwell was tackled in the EZ on a 3rd down with no flag, and a Troy Brown offensive PI in the first half (when the Pats were up 21-3 and were on the way to 24-3 or 28-3) was called even though it was within 5 yards of the LOS and the ball was not even in the air at the time of contact. The Patriots were do doubt on the receiving end of some bad calls last week, but the fact of the matter is that they should never have been in the position of allowing the refs to decide it. They had the big lead and couldn't stop the Colts from coming back, and that's on the players and the coaches and no one else.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 As I said HD, both headshots should have been called, but Vrabel launched himself at Warner and hit him square on the facemask after the ball was thrown while Woodson hit the side of Brady's helmet in an attempt to go for the ball. Hardly the same exact situation. But again, both should have been called. And stuff like that SHOULD be called. It shouldn't be a matter of "well it's the playoffs, we'll let them bash each other's QB's in the head all they want" or "we'll let 'em mug the other guys' receivers and wait for them to do the same back." Why the different rules in the playoffs?
Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 And stuff like that SHOULD be called. It shouldn't be a matter of "well it's the playoffs, we'll let them bash each other's QB's in the head all they want" or "we'll let 'em mug the other guys' receivers and wait for them to do the same back." Why the different rules in the playoffs? Ideally, they should stop calling the ticky-tack stuff in all the games. But if it comes down to the refs never letting football players play football, or sometimes letting football players play football, I'll take the latter.
West Hollywood Donahoe Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Ideally, they should stop calling the ticky-tack stuff in all the games. But if it comes down to the refs never letting football players play football, or sometimes letting football players play football, I'll take the latter. I've always preferred it when they didn't call anything against us. Considering 9-11 and our name, you'd think we'd get a break, especially from fans like these in here! Can you imagine rooting for the same team all your life, especially a losing team, when there's so many other teams to pick from?
fairweather fan Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Best quarterback in the Super Bowl? That does not compute, because so often the best quarterback is not the winner of the game, or, in the case of Marino and P, Manning, not even in the game. I have watched or listened to every Title game since 1960, before it was called the Super Bowl, and the best quarterback I ever saw for both mental acuity and sheer guts was Roger Staubach, who did wonders with Navy, had to serve after graduating, and then went to Dallas, who was not great at that time. The quarterback with the most skills that I saw in the last 46 years was the Denver Quarterback, whose name I will not speak because he is an a!!hole in real life. Plunkett gets a lot of appreciation from me, because I saw what he and his receivers went through playing for a team that had less organization than most junior varsity high school teams in Boston. And the original scrambling quarterback, Fran Tarkington, couldn't get it done for Minnesota or for the Giants, although he was the most compelling figure on the field. It is still a team game, and, unlike voting for the greatest golfer of all time in Majors (Woods, Nickelson, Hogan?), the quarterback only plays offensive snaps, and depends on his line, his receivers (with a receiver, Brady would probably be going to his fourth Superbowl), and his coach no matter how great individually he is. Given that, there is that extra ability that can make some quarterbacks rise above circumstance, and make us remember them in the last game of the year. But making a list of the greatest is like the academy awards, it don't get done without the director, the writer, and the staff.
2003Contenders Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Forget about Aikman too... His overall stats were inflated by that first game in which he threw 4 TD passes -- thanks to the horrible job our own offense did setting him up with 8 or 9 turnovers. Believe it or not, Kelly outplayed him in the second Super Bowl, and he didn't do anything all that special in the win over the Steelers either. He was a decent QB -- who was blessed with a great offensive line and Emmit Smith. (Take a look back at what his career record looked like WITHOUT Emmit!)
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 My memory is a little hazy...didn't Warner throw a late game pick, that helpled keep the Patriots in that game? Not against the Titans. 414 yards, two TDs. I said best single game, not best two games. Though personally, I think Steve Young's 6-TD Superbowl was the best single game I've seen. But carving up the Titans defense for 414 yards while barely running the ball is nothing to sneeze at, either.
Recommended Posts