A few tangential notes, mainly for tangential discussion. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 18/09/2012 01:01:22 AM
The main argument here is long settled in my mind, and that is from someone raised on Landryball.
I grant you the '9ers, but the Pats D was awful last year. Denver put up over 252 rushing yards against them in our first meeting last year, most of it in the first HALF. The only reason we did not keep running it down their throats and slaughter them is that in the second quarter Lance Ball blew a block that caused a sack-fumble by Tebow, then fumbled the ball himself at the line, and our idiot punt returner decided to muff a catch at our 10 with 0:05 left in the half, allowing a New England team we had completely dominated to take an 11 point lead to the locker room. We each punted after five minute drives in the third quarter, then they scored a TD with less than a minute left in the period and, down 18 points, our running game was effectively sidelined even though they had not stopped it all day.
Their D was awful; they just had the good fortune not to face a decent offense in the playoffs until they reached the Super Bowl.
Nature of the beast today; in the '80s and '90s the goal was to make Madden more like the real NFL: Now it is the reverse. Many of todays experienced and knowledgeable football fans sound like we did when we were 10; they think winning championships consists of no more and no less than getting a couple HoF pass rushers and a HoF QB. It is all about sacks, interceptions and TD passes now; real football with pulling guards and complex blocking schemes is hard to find.
Yet there are still three times as many interceptions as fumbles (which gets even more lopsided when one considers how many fumbles are either sacks or post-reception.) Incomplete passes still stop the clock when teams are nursing slim leads late in the half. Running still gains at least a few yards nearly every time, and one out of every three passes still gains NOTHING (assuming no sacks) for even the best QBs.
Football has not changed; coaches have just forgotten (or ignored) how it is played.
As for the average QB's who have won rings, how many won 2?
Depends how one defines "average," but I can think of a few *cou*Phil Simms*gh*. Jim Plunkett usually lived up to his name, but he has the jewelry, and the bust. I am personally inclined to include Bob Griese and Bart Starr, but the same applies to them. Terry Bradshaw has twice as much jewelry as each of the others, and a bust of his own. That is off the top of my head. Whether Manning belongs in that group in turn depends on whether one thinks the '07 and '11 Giants D on par with Lombardis Packers D, the No Name Defense, the Steel Curtain, the nasty (often dirty) defense of the '70s Raiders or the Parcells D that shut down Montana, Rice and Craig. Frankly, I think that is a tough sell; they are good (better than you credit, IMHO) but not among the all time elite.
The Patriot's defense in '07 was still respectable, IIRC, and San Fran's was nothing to sneeze at last season.
I grant you the '9ers, but the Pats D was awful last year. Denver put up over 252 rushing yards against them in our first meeting last year, most of it in the first HALF. The only reason we did not keep running it down their throats and slaughter them is that in the second quarter Lance Ball blew a block that caused a sack-fumble by Tebow, then fumbled the ball himself at the line, and our idiot punt returner decided to muff a catch at our 10 with 0:05 left in the half, allowing a New England team we had completely dominated to take an 11 point lead to the locker room. We each punted after five minute drives in the third quarter, then they scored a TD with less than a minute left in the period and, down 18 points, our running game was effectively sidelined even though they had not stopped it all day.
Their D was awful; they just had the good fortune not to face a decent offense in the playoffs until they reached the Super Bowl.
And the defense of the Giants has been very over-hyped in the last few years. They get a fair amount of sacks, and have three or four very talented pass rushers, but they have been erratic against the run (in the playoff game against Dallas, Romo didn't have to do much in the first half, beyond let Marion Barber move the ball at will to two long TD drives), and the secondary hit its high point between the two Super Bowl seasons.
Nature of the beast today; in the '80s and '90s the goal was to make Madden more like the real NFL: Now it is the reverse. Many of todays experienced and knowledgeable football fans sound like we did when we were 10; they think winning championships consists of no more and no less than getting a couple HoF pass rushers and a HoF QB. It is all about sacks, interceptions and TD passes now; real football with pulling guards and complex blocking schemes is hard to find.
Yet there are still three times as many interceptions as fumbles (which gets even more lopsided when one considers how many fumbles are either sacks or post-reception.) Incomplete passes still stop the clock when teams are nursing slim leads late in the half. Running still gains at least a few yards nearly every time, and one out of every three passes still gains NOTHING (assuming no sacks) for even the best QBs.
Football has not changed; coaches have just forgotten (or ignored) how it is played.
To many average QB have won rings for that argument o be anything more than cover for why his stats are so average.
His stats are average because his receivers have been average, and his offensive coordinator is notoriously dull & predictable. Give him Sean Peyton and he'd light up the score boards.As for the average QB's who have won rings, how many won 2?
Depends how one defines "average," but I can think of a few *cou*Phil Simms*gh*. Jim Plunkett usually lived up to his name, but he has the jewelry, and the bust. I am personally inclined to include Bob Griese and Bart Starr, but the same applies to them. Terry Bradshaw has twice as much jewelry as each of the others, and a bust of his own. That is off the top of my head. Whether Manning belongs in that group in turn depends on whether one thinks the '07 and '11 Giants D on par with Lombardis Packers D, the No Name Defense, the Steel Curtain, the nasty (often dirty) defense of the '70s Raiders or the Parcells D that shut down Montana, Rice and Craig. Frankly, I think that is a tough sell; they are good (better than you credit, IMHO) but not among the all time elite.