Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:54 pm
NOTE: This was one of our hottest threads. Peyton's recent record may rekindle the flame?
ARCHIVE
Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Started by John Turney, Jan 16 2014 05:51 PM
Page 1 of 5
80 replies to this topic
#1 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:51 PM
In the upcoming game and the many times they've faced each other, the loser gets what reputation. The winner what? Or are their legacies sealed?
#2 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:04 PM
I think winning is much more important to Manning's legacy than to Brady's. Brady currently holds a 10-4 edge in their head-to-head meetings and I think many people perceive Manning as a guy who tends to choke in big games.
However, they've met only three times in the post-season and Brady's edge there is only 2-1. Manning can even his post-season record against Brady and, in the process, he'll get a chance to win the Super Bowl for a second time.
If the Broncos lose this game at home, I think there are millions of fans who will always look back at Manning as a great regular-season QB who couldn't rise to the challenge in big games.
#3 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:44 PM
If anything, Manning is 2-1 in AFC Championship Games.
#4 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 07:21 PM
rhickok1109, on 16 Jan 2014 - 6:04 PM, said:
I think winning is much more important to Manning's legacy than to Brady's. Brady currently holds a 10-4 edge in their head-to-head meetings and I think many people perceive Manning as a guy who tends to choke in big games.
However, they've met only three times in the post-season and Brady's edge there is only 2-1. Manning can even his post-season record against Brady and, in the process, he'll get a chance to win the Super Bowl for a second time.
If the Broncos lose this game at home, I think there are millions of fans who will always look back at Manning as a great regular-season QB who couldn't rise to the challenge in big games.
I agree, but if Brady loses, and never gets back to the SB after this (which he wont, in my opinion), this will end up hurting his legacy more and more over time than it will now.
#5 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 08:29 PM
The fact that Manning has come up short in previous games against New England will likely be magnified this time because he'll be losing at home--and if the weather's cold, it will also reinforce the "Manning can't win in the cold" complaint.
#6 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:08 PM
Also with a win, Manning would be the third QB tp start a Super Bowl with two different teams (after Craig Morton and Kurt Warner) and maybe the first to win it.
#7 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:24 PM
If New England loses, with their receiving corps, it will be a team loss and won't hurt Brady's legacy one single iota.
If Denver loses, with Julius Thomas back in the lineup and Gronk out, it will be a Manning loss. But how much can it really hurt the legacy of a guy who will be a unanimous first-ballot Hall of Famer?
#8 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:35 PM
97Den98, on 16 Jan 2014 - 7:21 PM, said:
I agree, but if Brady loses, and never gets back to the SB after this (which he wont, in my opinion), this will end up hurting his legacy more and more over time than it will now.
Nonsense. Brady's legacy is 100% secure. His legacy can be enhanced but not harmed. Manning has much more to lose as he "only" has one SB title and two appearances to his credit.This game and, if they win it, the SB are important to how he is remembered by some.
However, as Jeremy said, at the end of it all Manning will still be one of the greatest of all time, no matter what happens in the next game or two. Along with Brady, Peyton will deserve a place on the Mount Rushmore of QBs with Baugh, Graham, Unitas and Montana.
#9 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 12:05 AM
Manning clearly has more to lose and more to gain. Brady...well, we are closing in on a decade since NE last won a SB, but even if they never win another before he retires there aren't many who were the starting qb for a team that won at least three league titles (plus played in two others). The club gets even smaller if you narrow it to just SB teams.
#10 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 12:44 AM
If Peyton Manning wins over the Patriots and the Broncos go on to win the Super Bowl, Manning will be the first QB to win a Super Bowl with different teams. Norm Van Brocklin was the only QB to do it (Rams and Eagles) in the pre-Super Bowl era.
#11 3243
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 02:41 AM
Unlike others here, I'm thinking that if the Patriots win the AFC Championship but then lose the Super Bowl, and if neither Manning or Brady make it back to the Super Bowl, their legacies, while considerable, will be tainted also. Manning will be viewed as a great regular-season QB who failed in the postseason every year except once, and there are those who will view Manning's Super Bowl win as a fluke. Brady, meanwhile, will be viewed by some as a quarterback who was greater early in his career than later, thus bringing up questions as to whether Brady lost his championship hunger at some point. Moreover, some will question the Patriots of the 2000s as a dynasty, and even give placekicker Adam Vinatieri more credit for actually winning their Super Bowls than Brady (even though it was he who got them into position for Vinatieri).
I can see this as eventually making the 2007 Patriots' Super Bowl loss to the Giants analogous to the '68 Colts' upset by the Jets, in that in both cases, that particular championship defeat of the team that was thought (and that thought themselves) to be the vastly superior team would affect it beyond that year; i.e. I can imagine people saying that after the heretofore-unbeaten 2007 Patriots' loss, that team was never the same again.
#12 conace21
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 03:06 AM
I was prepared to put Manning on my Mt. Rushmore of QBs if he had won the Super Bowl in 2009. After he lost, I resolved to table his candidacy until after his career ended. A SB win with Denver would reopen it.
#13 Bernard Brinker
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:05 AM
Often the legacies of QB's are defined by one or maybe two games, almost always playoff games. Prior to the 1970 merger and its expansion of the playoffs, John Unitas played 14 years started 159 games and quarterbacked a grand total of 3 playoff games (I am not counting the 4th quarter of the SB where he floated the ball around on a bad arm). A 162 games is a lot to choose from but unquestionably Unitas' legacy for most fans rests upon the 58 championship game. In Unitas' case it probably is not a bad shorthand for his career and how he played the game.
Joe Namath played 12 years with the Jets starting 126 games with 3 playoff appearances. Whether or not one liked Namath (and I did) his signature game and the source of his legacy was the SB win. Was it a good shorthand for his career? In the SB win he brilliantly executed a fairly conservative game plan, in particular the way he beat the Colts blitz with his quick release and mostly short passes. This was not typical of how Namath usually played the position.
Have Manning and Brady played their signature game, the one they will be remembered for (and will it be a good shorthand for their career)?
By my count Manning has played 15 years started 240 games with 21 playoff appearances while Brady has played 14 years with 191 games started and an additional 25 playoff games.
#14 74_75_78_79_
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:11 PM
Manning VS Brady...neither have won the Big One since '06 & '04 respectively, but Brady, at least, has made it to noticeably more AFCCs in his career whereas Manning, sadly, has had quite his share of one-and-done 1st-round byes - many of them involving critical/costly INTs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Peyton's weakness as far as not winning enough big games goes, is maybe (just maybe) he's TOO much of a student of the game for his own good. Maybe he tends to overthink/over-prepare at times, and it tends to bite him during those crucial situations. Just look at Bradshaw. Yes, maybe it wouldn't have hurt to spend some time in the film room, but he always said he was never one of those guys who would take out films from the library just to impress the coaches. He prided himself on instinct. 4-of-4 Rings, calling his own plays...not a bad author to take a page from.
Peyton has always had the numbers over Brady but always had at least one true 'marquis' WR while Brady for the most part has always seemed to have above-average WRs to work with; nothing special. Yes there's been Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Gronk, and in such an event having at least two of them in his arsenal, Brady proved that he could put up the big numbers just as well. Both are legendary 1st-ballot HOFs (heck, put 'em both in now), the argument can go either way, but for the reasons I state, I personally have to give Brady the nod over Peyton so far. He has less to lose with this upcoming AFCC while Manning has more to gain legacy-wise. If Peyton wins, and wins two weeks later, that's now two Rings he has - both since Brady won his last! He'll definitely gain some ground - first QB to win with two different teams certainly having a nice ring to it. Now if Brady were to win a third before it's all over, then that ought to catapult his status some; or if Peyton were to win again (back-to-back) next year, and so on. Still plenty of ground for either to gain on one another in their 'legacy' sweepstakes despite how little of their careers may be left.
Just the same, as I'm sure some Saints, Packers, and NYG fans may say of their QB, or some Seahawk-fans may very well be saying of their QB in the next few years, as a Steeler-fan, I'd simply rather have Big Ben than either Manning or Brady. To me (healthy, that is), he's the best QB for HIS very team than any other QB in the league is. On that particular two-minute-drill SB vs Cardinals, I seriously don't think Manning nor Brady drives them all the way down the field to the endzone. Maybe one of them gets them into FG-range and ties things up for OT, but that's about it. JMO.
#15 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:16 PM
JohnH19, on 16 Jan 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:
Nonsense. Brady's legacy is 100% secure. His legacy can be enhanced but not harmed. Manning has much more to lose as he "only" has one SB title and two appearances to his credit.This game and, if they win it, the SB are important to how he is remembered by some.
However, as Jeremy said, at the end of it all Manning will still be one of the greatest of all time, no matter what happens in the next game or two. Along with Brady, Peyton will deserve a place on the Mount Rushmore of QBs with Baugh, Graham, Unitas and Montana.
You think? I look at Brady like Joe Paterno. Nobody thought that his legacy would ever be harmed, but look at him now.
If Brady loses this game, and never wins one, it has to hurt, especially if the details of Spygate slowly start to gradually come out after people are retired.
#16 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:19 PM
3243, on 17 Jan 2014 - 02:41 AM, said:
Unlike others here, I'm thinking that if the Patriots win the AFC Championship but then lose the Super Bowl, and if neither Manning or Brady make it back to the Super Bowl, their legacies, while considerable, will be tainted also. Manning will be viewed as a great regular-season QB who failed in the postseason every year except once, and there are those who will view Manning's Super Bowl win as a fluke. Brady, meanwhile, will be viewed by some as a quarterback who was greater early in his career than later, thus bringing up questions as to whether Brady lost his championship hunger at some point. Moreover, some will question the Patriots of the 2000s as a dynasty, and even give placekicker Adam Vinatieri more credit for actually winning their Super Bowls than Brady (even though it was he who got them into position for Vinatieri).
I can see this as eventually making the 2007 Patriots' Super Bowl loss to the Giants analogous to the '68 Colts' upset by the Jets, in that in both cases, that particular championship defeat of the team that was thought (and that thought themselves) to be the vastly superior team would affect it beyond that year; i.e. I can imagine people saying that after the heretofore-unbeaten 2007 Patriots' loss, that team was never the same again.
I get what you're saying about the Patriots, but there's what the casual observers think and there's what the people in the know (like the members on this site) think. The Patriots weren't a dynasty in any true sense of the word. They had something like eight guys who were starters on all three teams, and seven of them aren't going to get a whole lot of Hall of Fame consideration. Compare that to the Cowboys, where they had 13 starters on all three teams and three (and counting) are in the Hall, or the Steelers, or the 49er's, or the Dolphins.
The opening-day scouting report on the 2001 Patriots was that they had the least talent of any team in the league, with only two players who had a shot of being Pro Bowlers -- Drew Bledsoe and Terry Glenn. That team won those Super Bowls on coaching, teamwork, and great quarterbacking. The narrative that gets thrown around is "dynasty", but the reality is as you say -- three games decided by a field goal, two games that could easily have gone the other way (the Eagles being the third).
As for Manning, people will say what they say. But nobody thinks of Brett Favre as the guy who was great in the regular season but always fell short in the playoffs except for one year where he arguably got lucky (those two return TDs by Desmond Howard), and nobody thinks of Dan Marino as the guy who couldn't get it done in the playoffs.
#17 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:21 PM
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:16 PM, said:
You think? I look at Brady like Joe Paterno. Nobody thought that his legacy would ever be harmed, but look at him now.
If Brady loses this game, and never wins one, it has to hurt, especially if the details of Spygate slowly start to gradually come out after people are retired.
What's Don Shula's legacy? Is he considered anything other than one of the greatest coaches of all time? He's in the same position -- a couple of Super Bowls early, then strikeouts for the rest of his career.
#18 byron
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:22 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 16 Jan 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:
If New England loses, with their receiving corps, it will be a team loss and won't hurt Brady's legacy one single iota.
If Denver loses, with Julius Thomas back in the lineup and Gronk out, it will be a Manning loss. But how much can it really hurt the legacy of a guy who will be a unanimous first-ballot Hall of Famer?
I think you've got Gronk on the wrong team?
I don't think either will take much of a hit with a loss. Their legacies are pretty well established IMHO.
#19 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:08 PM
byron, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:22 PM, said:
I think you've got Gronk on the wrong team?
I think what he means is that Manning will have lost with his best tight end back in the lineup, while Brady will have won with his best tight end out of the lineup.
#20 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:34 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:21 PM, said:
What's Don Shula's legacy? Is he considered anything other than one of the greatest coaches of all time? He's in the same position -- a couple of Super Bowls early, then strikeouts for the rest of his career.
If Brady never wins the SB again, here's how I will remember Don and Tom:
Don Shula: I remember him as a guy who didn't get Marino much help his last several years. He should have been fired after the 1992 AFC Title Game loss. However, if it wasn't for him, who knows what happens to the Dolphins because they weren't too popular in Miami until he came in and they started winning. And, he coached an average Dolphin team to the SB in 1982, and another one that, while exposed in the SB, did get there on Marino's right arm. So, all in all, pretty favorable.
Tom Brady: No matter what, I will remember him as the beneficiary of playing with Bill Belichick, and having a mysterious figure like Ernie Adams in the background pulling strings:
http://espn.go.com/e...tory?page=adams
I don't know what the actual facts are with Spygate, because Matt Walsh wouldn't talk, and Goodell destroyed the tapes. However, there is enough smoke there to conclude that there was a fire. How much that helped Brady be successful, I don't know, but it had a decent affect, at least. I don't see Tom being a top-10 QB in another organization.
Page 1 of 5
oldecapecod 11
Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Started by John Turney, Jan 16 2014 05:51 PM
Page 2 of 5
80 replies to this topic
#21 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:52 PM
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 7:34 PM, said:
If Brady never wins the SB again, here's how I will remember Don and Tom:
Don Shula: I remember him as a guy who didn't get Marino much help his last several years. He should have been fired after the 1992 AFC Title Game loss. However, if it wasn't for him, who knows what happens to the Dolphins because they weren't too popular in Miami until he came in and they started winning. And, he coached an average Dolphin team to the SB in 1982, and another one that, while exposed in the SB, did get there on Marino's right arm. So, all in all, pretty favorable.
Tom Brady: No matter what, I will remember him as the beneficiary of playing with Bill Belichick, and having a mysterious figure like Ernie Adams in the background pulling strings:
http://espn.go.com/e...tory?page=adams
I don't know what the actual facts are with Spygate, because Matt Walsh wouldn't talk, and Goodell destroyed the tapes. However, there is enough smoke there to conclude that there was a fire. How much that helped Brady be successful, I don't know, but it had a decent affect, at least. I don't see Tom being a top-10 QB in another organization.
Well, you're right, but don't you think you've gone overly specific on a general truth? The same -- perhaps stronger -- argument can be made regarding Joe Montana being the beneficiary of playing with Bill Walsh (and Jerry Rice). Put Lynn Swann on another team in the 1970's and he never gets a sniff of the Hall of Fame. Otto Graham was one of the greats, but if he didn't hook up with Paul Brown he'd be just another one of the really goods. I don't know how many Hall of Famers are in there because they ended up in the right situation, but I'd be shocked if it was less than half.
Then there's the other side of the coin: if Henry Ellard was five years younger, and comes out in the late 70's instead of early 80's, he's a Hall of Famer. But he was groomed in college as a 70's-style receiver, and kept that way in the pros even after the game had changed. So his name absolutely never comes up in HoF discussion, despite his numbers. In 1998, the Colts had to decide who to keep: Marvin Harrison or Sean Dawkins. Both were viewed at the time as being busts, but they likely kept Marvin because he was a year younger. Dawkins went on to have what is arguably one of the greatest season by a WR in history -- 53-823-15.1-1 in 15 games, at the hands of Billy Joe Tolliver, Kerry Collins at the low-point of his career, Danny Wuerffel, and Billy-Joe Hobert. Marvin made out okay as well....
Nobody gets great on their own. Greatness is always a function of talent, hard work, and opportunity. But answer me this: where is Bill Belichick with Drew Bledsoe as his QB through the 2000's?
#22 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:58 PM
I never heard Harrison viewed as a bust.
#23 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 10:28 PM
Peyton's legacy would have much more to lose if he was still searching for ring #1. I don't think he has much to lose compared to the 2006 AFC CG.
Plus, let's face it- even if he wins the SB, there is still going to be plenty of "Yeah, but..." discussion.
#24 3243
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:32 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:19 PM, said:
The Patriots weren't a dynasty in any true sense of the word. They had something like eight guys who were starters on all three teams, and seven of them aren't going to get a whole lot of Hall of Fame consideration. Compare that to the Cowboys, where they had 13 starters on all three teams and three (and counting) are in the Hall, or the Steelers, or the 49er's, or the Dolphins.
I wouldn't put the 2000s Patriots up with their dynastic predecessors. Now it's true that the Pats' lack of consistent starters on all three of their Super Bowl-winning teams was not their fault (unlike their predecessors, New England had free agency and salary cap limitations to deal with year after year), but their Super Bowl victories were all close games. For what it was, their first, over the Rams in 2001 was their best, as the Rams were the strongest of the Patriots S.B. opponents (especially on offense) and that Patriots team was a rag-tag bunch that really needed the Tuck Ripoff--I mean Rule just to get past Oakland (which was a better team than that Patriot team) in the Divisional round.
On the other hand, the 1990s Cowboys, the '80s 49ers, the '70s Steelers, and the early '70s Dolphins--even borderline dynasty teams like the '70s-mid-'80s Raiders and the early '80s-early '90s Redskins each had at least one Super Bowl victory which was a blowout. Yes, I include the Steelers' 16-6 victory over Minnesota in Super Bowl IX as a blowout, just for the way the Steel Curtain thoroughly dominated Minnesota's offense and shut them out (the Vikings' only score that day was on a blocked punt).
#25 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:43 PM
JWL, on 17 Jan 2014 - 8:58 PM, said:
I never heard Harrison viewed as a bust.
I suspect you did but don't remember. He was still two years away from being Marvin Harrison; at that point, he was basically another Darnay Scott, and who remembers now anything anyone said about him back in '98?
I'll try to find my yearbooks from '98 and get some quotes. (There's a reason why it's good to keep all those old magazines.)
#26 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:54 PM
3243, on 17 Jan 2014 - 11:32 PM, said:
I wouldn't put the 2000s Patriots up with their dynastic predecessors. Now it's true that the Pats' lack of consistent starters on all three of their Super Bowl-winning teams was not their fault (unlike their predecessors, New England had free agency and salary cap limitations to deal with year after year), but their Super Bowl victories were all close games. For what it was, their first, over the Rams in 2001 was their best, as the Rams were the strongest of the Patriots S.B. opponents (especially on offense) and that Patriots team was a rag-tag bunch that really needed the Tuck Ripoff--I mean Rule just to get past Oakland (which was a better team than that Patriot team) in the Divisional round.
On the other hand, the 1990s Cowboys, the '80s 49ers, the '70s Steelers, and the early '70s Dolphins--even borderline dynasty teams like the '70s-mid-'80s Raiders and the early '80s-early '90s Redskins each had at least one Super Bowl victory which was a blowout. Yes, I include the Steelers' 16-6 victory over Minnesota in Super Bowl IX as a blowout, just for the way the Steel Curtain thoroughly dominated Minnesota's offense and shut them out (the Vikings' only score that day was on a blocked punt).
I agree, but I'd be more blunt: the 2001 Patriots weren't that good, and the reason the roster changed so much between then and 2004 was because it really REALLY wasn't that hard to find better players.
The Eagles game was close for quite a while, but I remember thinking that the Eagles were very very lucky to be in it for so long. I thought they played quite badly, that the Pats had them completely under control. The other two, different stories. Mike Martz singlehandedly threw away that game by not listening to his players. The Panthers game is one of the greats, could easily have gone the other way.
#27 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:01 AM
Stats-wise, Pats were #6 in points score/allowed in 2001.
#28 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:16 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 17 Jan 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:
I suspect you did but don't remember. He was still two years away from being Marvin Harrison; at that point, he was basically another Darnay Scott, and who remembers now anything anyone said about him back in '98?
I'll try to find my yearbooks from '98 and get some quotes. (There's a reason why it's good to keep all those old magazines.)
I never heard him referred to as a bust. Keyshawn Johnson went first overall in that draft. Harrison was considered the better WR by some. I think Sterling Sharpe was one of the people who said it. Two years into their careers it was difficult to say who was better and Johnson was not considered a bust.
Maybe you have a much different definition of bust than I have?
To me, a bust is Tony Mandarich, Art Schlicter, Ryan Leaf, and JaMarcus Russell.
#29 TouchdownTimmy
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:23 AM
This may sound selfish, but I have enjoyed living in the moment of watching Brady and Manning play so much since their college days that this game will do nothing to tarnish their legacies in my mind. I will view this game as simply one more opportunity to see two of the games greats battle with everything at stake knowing that there is a good chance it may never happen again.
The truth is, people will talk glowingly of both long after all of us have left this earth.
#30 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:29 AM
JWL, on 18 Jan 2014 - 12:16 AM, said:
I never heard him referred to as a bust. Keyshawn Johnson went first overall in that draft. Harrison was considered the better WR by some. I think Sterling Sharpe was one of the people who said it. Two years into their careers it was difficult to say who was better and Johnson was not considered a bust.
Maybe you have a much different definition of bust than I have?
To me, a bust is Tony Mandarich, Art Schlicter, Ryan Leaf, and JaMarcus Russell.
Sigh.
Not my definition. Read the yearbooks from 1998, particularly Pro Football Weekly's. That's where you're going to see phrases like "a disappointment" and "is looking like a bust".
Two years in is, in my mind, far too early to reach that conclusion, but I get it: he'd played 32 games, started 30, and he was an old rookie to begin with, and he hadn't put up particularly impressive numbers. But obviously the only opinion that mattered was Bill Polian's, and his opinion was he needed to draft receivers in rounds 2 and 3 after taking Peyton Manning in the 1st, and he added Torrance Small to boot.
#31 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:56 AM
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:16 PM, said:
You think? I look at Brady like Joe Paterno. Nobody thought that his legacy would ever be harmed, but look at him now.
If Brady loses this game, and never wins one, it has to hurt, especially if the details of Spygate slowly start to gradually come out after people are retired.
Brady reminds you of Joe Paterno? Okay...
Maybe you've missed it but, unless winning the Super Bowl is the only thing that makes for a successful season, the Pats haven't skipped a beat since Spygate. It's time to let it go.
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 7:34 PM, said:
I don't see Tom being a top-10 QB in another organization.
That must be because he's been blessed with so many HoF quality players around him on the Pats offense for the past 13 years. There's Randy Moss and...and...uh, sorry, you're going to have to help me out here...
#32 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:15 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:
Sigh.
Not my definition. Read the yearbooks from 1998, particularly Pro Football Weekly's. That's where you're going to see phrases like "a disappointment" and "is looking like a bust".
Two years in is, in my mind, far too early to reach that conclusion, but I get it: he'd played 32 games, started 30, and he was an old rookie to begin with, and he hadn't put up particularly impressive numbers. But obviously the only opinion that mattered was Bill Polian's, and his opinion was he needed to draft receivers in rounds 2 and 3 after taking Peyton Manning in the 1st, and he added Torrance Small to boot.
He put up good numbers with bad QBs like Paul Justin. Was somebody expecting him to catch 95 passes for 1,489 yards in 1997?
I find it silly that the bust label was used with Harrison. If he only caught a few passes like A.J. Jenkins, then it would make sense.
#33 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:47 AM
Playing for a team that would end up with the #1 overall pick the following spring, Harrison ended up with 73 catches for 866 and 6 tds. Anyone labeling him a 'bust' at that point was, to be polite, being premature. As far as the team spending 2nd and 3rd round picks on wrs in '98, well, they did let Dawkins walk and there wasn't much leftover. Only other wr I can think of who was still with them in '98 was Aaron Bailey and he was relegated to kick return duties.
Speaking of Dawkins, I just can't see putting a season in which the receiver finished with less than 850 yards and 1 td up there with the likes of Jerry Rice's 1995 season and Randy Moss's 2007 season regardless of who was throwing him the ball. Gotta say that's the first time I've ever heard/seen it opined that that was 'arguably one of the greatest seasons by a WR in history'. As for the rest:
-As I've said here before, anyone who thinks Swann was just along for the ride on those Steelers' teams hasn't done their homework.
-You could just as easily ask "What if Paul Brown hadn't hooked up with Otto Graham?" or "What if Walsh hadn't hooked up with Montana?" as you could the other way around. And Montana already had two rings before Rice showed up.
#34 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:08 AM
26554, on 18 Jan 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:
Speaking of Dawkins, I just can't see putting a season in which the receiver finished with less than 850 yards and 1 td up there with the likes of Jerry Rice's 1995 season and Randy Moss's 2007 season regardless of who was throwing him the ball. Gotta say that's the first time I've ever heard/seen it opined that that was 'arguably one of the greatest seasons by a WR in history'.
I'm quickly realizing that this place is an irony-free zone.
You're all right. I confess, I made it up completely. All the journals in 1998 were declaring Marvin Harrison a Hall of Famer in the making.
#35 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:12 AM
26554, on 18 Jan 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:
-As I've said here before, anyone who thinks Swann was just along for the ride on those Steelers' teams hasn't done their homework.
I apologize for this one as well. I didn't realize you'd said it before. I'm guessing that the selectors on the Hall of Fame committee who voted him out for 13 consecutive years also didn't do their homework. And, you know, didn't realize you'd said it before. You could have saved them more than a decade of argument if you'd just said it a little louder.
#36 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:19 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:
I'm quickly realizing that this place is an irony-free zone.
You're all right. I confess, I made it up completely. All the journals in 1998 were declaring Marvin Harrison a Hall of Famer in the making.
I heard that more than I heard bust in 1997 and I'm not making it up. What I heard were comparisons to Johnson. This was something Jets fans kept an eye on. Through two years, Johnson was not considered a bust, yet many Jets fans were wondering if the Jets picked the best WR in that draft.
If anyone called Harrison a bust, then the person was a moron.
#37 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:41 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 02:12 AM, said:
I apologize for this one as well. I didn't realize you'd said it before. I'm guessing that the selectors on the Hall of Fame committee who voted him out for 13 consecutive years also didn't do their homework. And, you know, didn't realize you'd said it before. You could have saved them more than a decade of argument if you'd just said it a little louder.
Your point is what?
#38 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:06 PM
26554, on 18 Jan 2014 - 02:41 AM, said:
Your point is what?
The point, Your Eminence, is that "as I've said here before" probably isn't the discussion-ending slam-dunk point that you think it is. You don't get points for being wrong for a long time.
Swann was a really good receiver, but you need to do a little math. Feast-or-famine players like him simply are not as valuable as guys that consistently move the chains. When you run the simulations, replacing a 17.0 YPC guy with a 12.5 YPC guy who gets the same yards wins you more games. The 17.0 guy gets you more lopsided scores, essentially "wasted" points, and games where he's kept off the board, costing his team the game.
But don't believe me, believe Bill Walsh and the hundreds of coaches who moved away from the 70's Steelers-type offense in favour of Walsh's call-it-what-you-want offense.
#39 conace21
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 03:00 PM
The biggest bust talk about Harrison seemed to come after 1998 and before 1999. He was not a bust like a Heath Shuler or Mandarich, as he put up solid but unspectacular numbers his first three years. The problem was with his peers. Terry Glenn had a super season in 1996 and put up great numbers the next two years....When he was healthy. Keyshawn Johnson and Eric Mounds broke out in the 1998 season, and even Terrell Owens had a 1,000 yard season in 1998. Jermaine Lewis and Eddie Kennison had shown promise as return men. Harrison didn't seem to match up. Of course, after 1999, it was a different story.
#40 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 05:24 PM
JohnH19, on 18 Jan 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:
Brady reminds you of Joe Paterno? Okay...
Maybe you've missed it but, unless winning the Super Bowl is the only thing that makes for a successful season, the Pats haven't skipped a beat since Spygate. It's time to let it go.
That must be because he's been blessed with so many HoF quality players around him on the Pats offense for the past 13 years. There's Randy Moss and...and...uh, sorry, you're going to have to help me out here...
1. I don't think they stopped cheating. They still have Ernie Adams, who is a very shady figure that helps them get any edge they can.
2. Belichick's system, which is about structure rather than talent, is tailor-made for Brady. That's why how many HOF and Pro Bowl players he has had around him is completely irrelevant.
Page 2 of 5
oldecapecod 11
ARCHIVE
Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Started by John Turney, Jan 16 2014 05:51 PM
Page 1 of 5
80 replies to this topic
#1 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:51 PM
In the upcoming game and the many times they've faced each other, the loser gets what reputation. The winner what? Or are their legacies sealed?
#2 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:04 PM
I think winning is much more important to Manning's legacy than to Brady's. Brady currently holds a 10-4 edge in their head-to-head meetings and I think many people perceive Manning as a guy who tends to choke in big games.
However, they've met only three times in the post-season and Brady's edge there is only 2-1. Manning can even his post-season record against Brady and, in the process, he'll get a chance to win the Super Bowl for a second time.
If the Broncos lose this game at home, I think there are millions of fans who will always look back at Manning as a great regular-season QB who couldn't rise to the challenge in big games.
#3 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:44 PM
If anything, Manning is 2-1 in AFC Championship Games.
#4 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 07:21 PM
rhickok1109, on 16 Jan 2014 - 6:04 PM, said:
I think winning is much more important to Manning's legacy than to Brady's. Brady currently holds a 10-4 edge in their head-to-head meetings and I think many people perceive Manning as a guy who tends to choke in big games.
However, they've met only three times in the post-season and Brady's edge there is only 2-1. Manning can even his post-season record against Brady and, in the process, he'll get a chance to win the Super Bowl for a second time.
If the Broncos lose this game at home, I think there are millions of fans who will always look back at Manning as a great regular-season QB who couldn't rise to the challenge in big games.
I agree, but if Brady loses, and never gets back to the SB after this (which he wont, in my opinion), this will end up hurting his legacy more and more over time than it will now.
#5 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 08:29 PM
The fact that Manning has come up short in previous games against New England will likely be magnified this time because he'll be losing at home--and if the weather's cold, it will also reinforce the "Manning can't win in the cold" complaint.
#6 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:08 PM
Also with a win, Manning would be the third QB tp start a Super Bowl with two different teams (after Craig Morton and Kurt Warner) and maybe the first to win it.
#7 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:24 PM
If New England loses, with their receiving corps, it will be a team loss and won't hurt Brady's legacy one single iota.
If Denver loses, with Julius Thomas back in the lineup and Gronk out, it will be a Manning loss. But how much can it really hurt the legacy of a guy who will be a unanimous first-ballot Hall of Famer?
#8 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:35 PM
97Den98, on 16 Jan 2014 - 7:21 PM, said:
I agree, but if Brady loses, and never gets back to the SB after this (which he wont, in my opinion), this will end up hurting his legacy more and more over time than it will now.
Nonsense. Brady's legacy is 100% secure. His legacy can be enhanced but not harmed. Manning has much more to lose as he "only" has one SB title and two appearances to his credit.This game and, if they win it, the SB are important to how he is remembered by some.
However, as Jeremy said, at the end of it all Manning will still be one of the greatest of all time, no matter what happens in the next game or two. Along with Brady, Peyton will deserve a place on the Mount Rushmore of QBs with Baugh, Graham, Unitas and Montana.
#9 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 12:05 AM
Manning clearly has more to lose and more to gain. Brady...well, we are closing in on a decade since NE last won a SB, but even if they never win another before he retires there aren't many who were the starting qb for a team that won at least three league titles (plus played in two others). The club gets even smaller if you narrow it to just SB teams.
#10 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 12:44 AM
If Peyton Manning wins over the Patriots and the Broncos go on to win the Super Bowl, Manning will be the first QB to win a Super Bowl with different teams. Norm Van Brocklin was the only QB to do it (Rams and Eagles) in the pre-Super Bowl era.
#11 3243
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 02:41 AM
Unlike others here, I'm thinking that if the Patriots win the AFC Championship but then lose the Super Bowl, and if neither Manning or Brady make it back to the Super Bowl, their legacies, while considerable, will be tainted also. Manning will be viewed as a great regular-season QB who failed in the postseason every year except once, and there are those who will view Manning's Super Bowl win as a fluke. Brady, meanwhile, will be viewed by some as a quarterback who was greater early in his career than later, thus bringing up questions as to whether Brady lost his championship hunger at some point. Moreover, some will question the Patriots of the 2000s as a dynasty, and even give placekicker Adam Vinatieri more credit for actually winning their Super Bowls than Brady (even though it was he who got them into position for Vinatieri).
I can see this as eventually making the 2007 Patriots' Super Bowl loss to the Giants analogous to the '68 Colts' upset by the Jets, in that in both cases, that particular championship defeat of the team that was thought (and that thought themselves) to be the vastly superior team would affect it beyond that year; i.e. I can imagine people saying that after the heretofore-unbeaten 2007 Patriots' loss, that team was never the same again.
#12 conace21
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 03:06 AM
I was prepared to put Manning on my Mt. Rushmore of QBs if he had won the Super Bowl in 2009. After he lost, I resolved to table his candidacy until after his career ended. A SB win with Denver would reopen it.
#13 Bernard Brinker
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:05 AM
Often the legacies of QB's are defined by one or maybe two games, almost always playoff games. Prior to the 1970 merger and its expansion of the playoffs, John Unitas played 14 years started 159 games and quarterbacked a grand total of 3 playoff games (I am not counting the 4th quarter of the SB where he floated the ball around on a bad arm). A 162 games is a lot to choose from but unquestionably Unitas' legacy for most fans rests upon the 58 championship game. In Unitas' case it probably is not a bad shorthand for his career and how he played the game.
Joe Namath played 12 years with the Jets starting 126 games with 3 playoff appearances. Whether or not one liked Namath (and I did) his signature game and the source of his legacy was the SB win. Was it a good shorthand for his career? In the SB win he brilliantly executed a fairly conservative game plan, in particular the way he beat the Colts blitz with his quick release and mostly short passes. This was not typical of how Namath usually played the position.
Have Manning and Brady played their signature game, the one they will be remembered for (and will it be a good shorthand for their career)?
By my count Manning has played 15 years started 240 games with 21 playoff appearances while Brady has played 14 years with 191 games started and an additional 25 playoff games.
#14 74_75_78_79_
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:11 PM
Manning VS Brady...neither have won the Big One since '06 & '04 respectively, but Brady, at least, has made it to noticeably more AFCCs in his career whereas Manning, sadly, has had quite his share of one-and-done 1st-round byes - many of them involving critical/costly INTs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Peyton's weakness as far as not winning enough big games goes, is maybe (just maybe) he's TOO much of a student of the game for his own good. Maybe he tends to overthink/over-prepare at times, and it tends to bite him during those crucial situations. Just look at Bradshaw. Yes, maybe it wouldn't have hurt to spend some time in the film room, but he always said he was never one of those guys who would take out films from the library just to impress the coaches. He prided himself on instinct. 4-of-4 Rings, calling his own plays...not a bad author to take a page from.
Peyton has always had the numbers over Brady but always had at least one true 'marquis' WR while Brady for the most part has always seemed to have above-average WRs to work with; nothing special. Yes there's been Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Gronk, and in such an event having at least two of them in his arsenal, Brady proved that he could put up the big numbers just as well. Both are legendary 1st-ballot HOFs (heck, put 'em both in now), the argument can go either way, but for the reasons I state, I personally have to give Brady the nod over Peyton so far. He has less to lose with this upcoming AFCC while Manning has more to gain legacy-wise. If Peyton wins, and wins two weeks later, that's now two Rings he has - both since Brady won his last! He'll definitely gain some ground - first QB to win with two different teams certainly having a nice ring to it. Now if Brady were to win a third before it's all over, then that ought to catapult his status some; or if Peyton were to win again (back-to-back) next year, and so on. Still plenty of ground for either to gain on one another in their 'legacy' sweepstakes despite how little of their careers may be left.
Just the same, as I'm sure some Saints, Packers, and NYG fans may say of their QB, or some Seahawk-fans may very well be saying of their QB in the next few years, as a Steeler-fan, I'd simply rather have Big Ben than either Manning or Brady. To me (healthy, that is), he's the best QB for HIS very team than any other QB in the league is. On that particular two-minute-drill SB vs Cardinals, I seriously don't think Manning nor Brady drives them all the way down the field to the endzone. Maybe one of them gets them into FG-range and ties things up for OT, but that's about it. JMO.
#15 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:16 PM
JohnH19, on 16 Jan 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:
Nonsense. Brady's legacy is 100% secure. His legacy can be enhanced but not harmed. Manning has much more to lose as he "only" has one SB title and two appearances to his credit.This game and, if they win it, the SB are important to how he is remembered by some.
However, as Jeremy said, at the end of it all Manning will still be one of the greatest of all time, no matter what happens in the next game or two. Along with Brady, Peyton will deserve a place on the Mount Rushmore of QBs with Baugh, Graham, Unitas and Montana.
You think? I look at Brady like Joe Paterno. Nobody thought that his legacy would ever be harmed, but look at him now.
If Brady loses this game, and never wins one, it has to hurt, especially if the details of Spygate slowly start to gradually come out after people are retired.
#16 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:19 PM
3243, on 17 Jan 2014 - 02:41 AM, said:
Unlike others here, I'm thinking that if the Patriots win the AFC Championship but then lose the Super Bowl, and if neither Manning or Brady make it back to the Super Bowl, their legacies, while considerable, will be tainted also. Manning will be viewed as a great regular-season QB who failed in the postseason every year except once, and there are those who will view Manning's Super Bowl win as a fluke. Brady, meanwhile, will be viewed by some as a quarterback who was greater early in his career than later, thus bringing up questions as to whether Brady lost his championship hunger at some point. Moreover, some will question the Patriots of the 2000s as a dynasty, and even give placekicker Adam Vinatieri more credit for actually winning their Super Bowls than Brady (even though it was he who got them into position for Vinatieri).
I can see this as eventually making the 2007 Patriots' Super Bowl loss to the Giants analogous to the '68 Colts' upset by the Jets, in that in both cases, that particular championship defeat of the team that was thought (and that thought themselves) to be the vastly superior team would affect it beyond that year; i.e. I can imagine people saying that after the heretofore-unbeaten 2007 Patriots' loss, that team was never the same again.
I get what you're saying about the Patriots, but there's what the casual observers think and there's what the people in the know (like the members on this site) think. The Patriots weren't a dynasty in any true sense of the word. They had something like eight guys who were starters on all three teams, and seven of them aren't going to get a whole lot of Hall of Fame consideration. Compare that to the Cowboys, where they had 13 starters on all three teams and three (and counting) are in the Hall, or the Steelers, or the 49er's, or the Dolphins.
The opening-day scouting report on the 2001 Patriots was that they had the least talent of any team in the league, with only two players who had a shot of being Pro Bowlers -- Drew Bledsoe and Terry Glenn. That team won those Super Bowls on coaching, teamwork, and great quarterbacking. The narrative that gets thrown around is "dynasty", but the reality is as you say -- three games decided by a field goal, two games that could easily have gone the other way (the Eagles being the third).
As for Manning, people will say what they say. But nobody thinks of Brett Favre as the guy who was great in the regular season but always fell short in the playoffs except for one year where he arguably got lucky (those two return TDs by Desmond Howard), and nobody thinks of Dan Marino as the guy who couldn't get it done in the playoffs.
#17 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:21 PM
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:16 PM, said:
You think? I look at Brady like Joe Paterno. Nobody thought that his legacy would ever be harmed, but look at him now.
If Brady loses this game, and never wins one, it has to hurt, especially if the details of Spygate slowly start to gradually come out after people are retired.
What's Don Shula's legacy? Is he considered anything other than one of the greatest coaches of all time? He's in the same position -- a couple of Super Bowls early, then strikeouts for the rest of his career.
#18 byron
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:22 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 16 Jan 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:
If New England loses, with their receiving corps, it will be a team loss and won't hurt Brady's legacy one single iota.
If Denver loses, with Julius Thomas back in the lineup and Gronk out, it will be a Manning loss. But how much can it really hurt the legacy of a guy who will be a unanimous first-ballot Hall of Famer?
I think you've got Gronk on the wrong team?
I don't think either will take much of a hit with a loss. Their legacies are pretty well established IMHO.
#19 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:08 PM
byron, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:22 PM, said:
I think you've got Gronk on the wrong team?
I think what he means is that Manning will have lost with his best tight end back in the lineup, while Brady will have won with his best tight end out of the lineup.
#20 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:34 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:21 PM, said:
What's Don Shula's legacy? Is he considered anything other than one of the greatest coaches of all time? He's in the same position -- a couple of Super Bowls early, then strikeouts for the rest of his career.
If Brady never wins the SB again, here's how I will remember Don and Tom:
Don Shula: I remember him as a guy who didn't get Marino much help his last several years. He should have been fired after the 1992 AFC Title Game loss. However, if it wasn't for him, who knows what happens to the Dolphins because they weren't too popular in Miami until he came in and they started winning. And, he coached an average Dolphin team to the SB in 1982, and another one that, while exposed in the SB, did get there on Marino's right arm. So, all in all, pretty favorable.
Tom Brady: No matter what, I will remember him as the beneficiary of playing with Bill Belichick, and having a mysterious figure like Ernie Adams in the background pulling strings:
http://espn.go.com/e...tory?page=adams
I don't know what the actual facts are with Spygate, because Matt Walsh wouldn't talk, and Goodell destroyed the tapes. However, there is enough smoke there to conclude that there was a fire. How much that helped Brady be successful, I don't know, but it had a decent affect, at least. I don't see Tom being a top-10 QB in another organization.
Page 1 of 5
oldecapecod 11
Legacy-wise, who has more to gain, lose: Manning or Brady?
Started by John Turney, Jan 16 2014 05:51 PM
Page 2 of 5
80 replies to this topic
#21 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:52 PM
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 7:34 PM, said:
If Brady never wins the SB again, here's how I will remember Don and Tom:
Don Shula: I remember him as a guy who didn't get Marino much help his last several years. He should have been fired after the 1992 AFC Title Game loss. However, if it wasn't for him, who knows what happens to the Dolphins because they weren't too popular in Miami until he came in and they started winning. And, he coached an average Dolphin team to the SB in 1982, and another one that, while exposed in the SB, did get there on Marino's right arm. So, all in all, pretty favorable.
Tom Brady: No matter what, I will remember him as the beneficiary of playing with Bill Belichick, and having a mysterious figure like Ernie Adams in the background pulling strings:
http://espn.go.com/e...tory?page=adams
I don't know what the actual facts are with Spygate, because Matt Walsh wouldn't talk, and Goodell destroyed the tapes. However, there is enough smoke there to conclude that there was a fire. How much that helped Brady be successful, I don't know, but it had a decent affect, at least. I don't see Tom being a top-10 QB in another organization.
Well, you're right, but don't you think you've gone overly specific on a general truth? The same -- perhaps stronger -- argument can be made regarding Joe Montana being the beneficiary of playing with Bill Walsh (and Jerry Rice). Put Lynn Swann on another team in the 1970's and he never gets a sniff of the Hall of Fame. Otto Graham was one of the greats, but if he didn't hook up with Paul Brown he'd be just another one of the really goods. I don't know how many Hall of Famers are in there because they ended up in the right situation, but I'd be shocked if it was less than half.
Then there's the other side of the coin: if Henry Ellard was five years younger, and comes out in the late 70's instead of early 80's, he's a Hall of Famer. But he was groomed in college as a 70's-style receiver, and kept that way in the pros even after the game had changed. So his name absolutely never comes up in HoF discussion, despite his numbers. In 1998, the Colts had to decide who to keep: Marvin Harrison or Sean Dawkins. Both were viewed at the time as being busts, but they likely kept Marvin because he was a year younger. Dawkins went on to have what is arguably one of the greatest season by a WR in history -- 53-823-15.1-1 in 15 games, at the hands of Billy Joe Tolliver, Kerry Collins at the low-point of his career, Danny Wuerffel, and Billy-Joe Hobert. Marvin made out okay as well....
Nobody gets great on their own. Greatness is always a function of talent, hard work, and opportunity. But answer me this: where is Bill Belichick with Drew Bledsoe as his QB through the 2000's?
#22 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:58 PM
I never heard Harrison viewed as a bust.
#23 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 10:28 PM
Peyton's legacy would have much more to lose if he was still searching for ring #1. I don't think he has much to lose compared to the 2006 AFC CG.
Plus, let's face it- even if he wins the SB, there is still going to be plenty of "Yeah, but..." discussion.
#24 3243
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:32 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:19 PM, said:
The Patriots weren't a dynasty in any true sense of the word. They had something like eight guys who were starters on all three teams, and seven of them aren't going to get a whole lot of Hall of Fame consideration. Compare that to the Cowboys, where they had 13 starters on all three teams and three (and counting) are in the Hall, or the Steelers, or the 49er's, or the Dolphins.
I wouldn't put the 2000s Patriots up with their dynastic predecessors. Now it's true that the Pats' lack of consistent starters on all three of their Super Bowl-winning teams was not their fault (unlike their predecessors, New England had free agency and salary cap limitations to deal with year after year), but their Super Bowl victories were all close games. For what it was, their first, over the Rams in 2001 was their best, as the Rams were the strongest of the Patriots S.B. opponents (especially on offense) and that Patriots team was a rag-tag bunch that really needed the Tuck Ripoff--I mean Rule just to get past Oakland (which was a better team than that Patriot team) in the Divisional round.
On the other hand, the 1990s Cowboys, the '80s 49ers, the '70s Steelers, and the early '70s Dolphins--even borderline dynasty teams like the '70s-mid-'80s Raiders and the early '80s-early '90s Redskins each had at least one Super Bowl victory which was a blowout. Yes, I include the Steelers' 16-6 victory over Minnesota in Super Bowl IX as a blowout, just for the way the Steel Curtain thoroughly dominated Minnesota's offense and shut them out (the Vikings' only score that day was on a blocked punt).
#25 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:43 PM
JWL, on 17 Jan 2014 - 8:58 PM, said:
I never heard Harrison viewed as a bust.
I suspect you did but don't remember. He was still two years away from being Marvin Harrison; at that point, he was basically another Darnay Scott, and who remembers now anything anyone said about him back in '98?
I'll try to find my yearbooks from '98 and get some quotes. (There's a reason why it's good to keep all those old magazines.)
#26 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:54 PM
3243, on 17 Jan 2014 - 11:32 PM, said:
I wouldn't put the 2000s Patriots up with their dynastic predecessors. Now it's true that the Pats' lack of consistent starters on all three of their Super Bowl-winning teams was not their fault (unlike their predecessors, New England had free agency and salary cap limitations to deal with year after year), but their Super Bowl victories were all close games. For what it was, their first, over the Rams in 2001 was their best, as the Rams were the strongest of the Patriots S.B. opponents (especially on offense) and that Patriots team was a rag-tag bunch that really needed the Tuck Ripoff--I mean Rule just to get past Oakland (which was a better team than that Patriot team) in the Divisional round.
On the other hand, the 1990s Cowboys, the '80s 49ers, the '70s Steelers, and the early '70s Dolphins--even borderline dynasty teams like the '70s-mid-'80s Raiders and the early '80s-early '90s Redskins each had at least one Super Bowl victory which was a blowout. Yes, I include the Steelers' 16-6 victory over Minnesota in Super Bowl IX as a blowout, just for the way the Steel Curtain thoroughly dominated Minnesota's offense and shut them out (the Vikings' only score that day was on a blocked punt).
I agree, but I'd be more blunt: the 2001 Patriots weren't that good, and the reason the roster changed so much between then and 2004 was because it really REALLY wasn't that hard to find better players.
The Eagles game was close for quite a while, but I remember thinking that the Eagles were very very lucky to be in it for so long. I thought they played quite badly, that the Pats had them completely under control. The other two, different stories. Mike Martz singlehandedly threw away that game by not listening to his players. The Panthers game is one of the greats, could easily have gone the other way.
#27 Chrisskreager
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:01 AM
Stats-wise, Pats were #6 in points score/allowed in 2001.
#28 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:16 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 17 Jan 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:
I suspect you did but don't remember. He was still two years away from being Marvin Harrison; at that point, he was basically another Darnay Scott, and who remembers now anything anyone said about him back in '98?
I'll try to find my yearbooks from '98 and get some quotes. (There's a reason why it's good to keep all those old magazines.)
I never heard him referred to as a bust. Keyshawn Johnson went first overall in that draft. Harrison was considered the better WR by some. I think Sterling Sharpe was one of the people who said it. Two years into their careers it was difficult to say who was better and Johnson was not considered a bust.
Maybe you have a much different definition of bust than I have?
To me, a bust is Tony Mandarich, Art Schlicter, Ryan Leaf, and JaMarcus Russell.
#29 TouchdownTimmy
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:23 AM
This may sound selfish, but I have enjoyed living in the moment of watching Brady and Manning play so much since their college days that this game will do nothing to tarnish their legacies in my mind. I will view this game as simply one more opportunity to see two of the games greats battle with everything at stake knowing that there is a good chance it may never happen again.
The truth is, people will talk glowingly of both long after all of us have left this earth.
#30 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:29 AM
JWL, on 18 Jan 2014 - 12:16 AM, said:
I never heard him referred to as a bust. Keyshawn Johnson went first overall in that draft. Harrison was considered the better WR by some. I think Sterling Sharpe was one of the people who said it. Two years into their careers it was difficult to say who was better and Johnson was not considered a bust.
Maybe you have a much different definition of bust than I have?
To me, a bust is Tony Mandarich, Art Schlicter, Ryan Leaf, and JaMarcus Russell.
Sigh.
Not my definition. Read the yearbooks from 1998, particularly Pro Football Weekly's. That's where you're going to see phrases like "a disappointment" and "is looking like a bust".
Two years in is, in my mind, far too early to reach that conclusion, but I get it: he'd played 32 games, started 30, and he was an old rookie to begin with, and he hadn't put up particularly impressive numbers. But obviously the only opinion that mattered was Bill Polian's, and his opinion was he needed to draft receivers in rounds 2 and 3 after taking Peyton Manning in the 1st, and he added Torrance Small to boot.
#31 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:56 AM
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 6:16 PM, said:
You think? I look at Brady like Joe Paterno. Nobody thought that his legacy would ever be harmed, but look at him now.
If Brady loses this game, and never wins one, it has to hurt, especially if the details of Spygate slowly start to gradually come out after people are retired.
Brady reminds you of Joe Paterno? Okay...
Maybe you've missed it but, unless winning the Super Bowl is the only thing that makes for a successful season, the Pats haven't skipped a beat since Spygate. It's time to let it go.
97Den98, on 17 Jan 2014 - 7:34 PM, said:
I don't see Tom being a top-10 QB in another organization.
That must be because he's been blessed with so many HoF quality players around him on the Pats offense for the past 13 years. There's Randy Moss and...and...uh, sorry, you're going to have to help me out here...
#32 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:15 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:
Sigh.
Not my definition. Read the yearbooks from 1998, particularly Pro Football Weekly's. That's where you're going to see phrases like "a disappointment" and "is looking like a bust".
Two years in is, in my mind, far too early to reach that conclusion, but I get it: he'd played 32 games, started 30, and he was an old rookie to begin with, and he hadn't put up particularly impressive numbers. But obviously the only opinion that mattered was Bill Polian's, and his opinion was he needed to draft receivers in rounds 2 and 3 after taking Peyton Manning in the 1st, and he added Torrance Small to boot.
He put up good numbers with bad QBs like Paul Justin. Was somebody expecting him to catch 95 passes for 1,489 yards in 1997?
I find it silly that the bust label was used with Harrison. If he only caught a few passes like A.J. Jenkins, then it would make sense.
#33 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:47 AM
Playing for a team that would end up with the #1 overall pick the following spring, Harrison ended up with 73 catches for 866 and 6 tds. Anyone labeling him a 'bust' at that point was, to be polite, being premature. As far as the team spending 2nd and 3rd round picks on wrs in '98, well, they did let Dawkins walk and there wasn't much leftover. Only other wr I can think of who was still with them in '98 was Aaron Bailey and he was relegated to kick return duties.
Speaking of Dawkins, I just can't see putting a season in which the receiver finished with less than 850 yards and 1 td up there with the likes of Jerry Rice's 1995 season and Randy Moss's 2007 season regardless of who was throwing him the ball. Gotta say that's the first time I've ever heard/seen it opined that that was 'arguably one of the greatest seasons by a WR in history'. As for the rest:
-As I've said here before, anyone who thinks Swann was just along for the ride on those Steelers' teams hasn't done their homework.
-You could just as easily ask "What if Paul Brown hadn't hooked up with Otto Graham?" or "What if Walsh hadn't hooked up with Montana?" as you could the other way around. And Montana already had two rings before Rice showed up.
#34 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:08 AM
26554, on 18 Jan 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:
Speaking of Dawkins, I just can't see putting a season in which the receiver finished with less than 850 yards and 1 td up there with the likes of Jerry Rice's 1995 season and Randy Moss's 2007 season regardless of who was throwing him the ball. Gotta say that's the first time I've ever heard/seen it opined that that was 'arguably one of the greatest seasons by a WR in history'.
I'm quickly realizing that this place is an irony-free zone.
You're all right. I confess, I made it up completely. All the journals in 1998 were declaring Marvin Harrison a Hall of Famer in the making.
#35 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:12 AM
26554, on 18 Jan 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:
-As I've said here before, anyone who thinks Swann was just along for the ride on those Steelers' teams hasn't done their homework.
I apologize for this one as well. I didn't realize you'd said it before. I'm guessing that the selectors on the Hall of Fame committee who voted him out for 13 consecutive years also didn't do their homework. And, you know, didn't realize you'd said it before. You could have saved them more than a decade of argument if you'd just said it a little louder.
#36 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:19 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:
I'm quickly realizing that this place is an irony-free zone.
You're all right. I confess, I made it up completely. All the journals in 1998 were declaring Marvin Harrison a Hall of Famer in the making.
I heard that more than I heard bust in 1997 and I'm not making it up. What I heard were comparisons to Johnson. This was something Jets fans kept an eye on. Through two years, Johnson was not considered a bust, yet many Jets fans were wondering if the Jets picked the best WR in that draft.
If anyone called Harrison a bust, then the person was a moron.
#37 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:41 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 18 Jan 2014 - 02:12 AM, said:
I apologize for this one as well. I didn't realize you'd said it before. I'm guessing that the selectors on the Hall of Fame committee who voted him out for 13 consecutive years also didn't do their homework. And, you know, didn't realize you'd said it before. You could have saved them more than a decade of argument if you'd just said it a little louder.
Your point is what?
#38 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 18 January 2014 - 01:06 PM
26554, on 18 Jan 2014 - 02:41 AM, said:
Your point is what?
The point, Your Eminence, is that "as I've said here before" probably isn't the discussion-ending slam-dunk point that you think it is. You don't get points for being wrong for a long time.
Swann was a really good receiver, but you need to do a little math. Feast-or-famine players like him simply are not as valuable as guys that consistently move the chains. When you run the simulations, replacing a 17.0 YPC guy with a 12.5 YPC guy who gets the same yards wins you more games. The 17.0 guy gets you more lopsided scores, essentially "wasted" points, and games where he's kept off the board, costing his team the game.
But don't believe me, believe Bill Walsh and the hundreds of coaches who moved away from the 70's Steelers-type offense in favour of Walsh's call-it-what-you-want offense.
#39 conace21
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 03:00 PM
The biggest bust talk about Harrison seemed to come after 1998 and before 1999. He was not a bust like a Heath Shuler or Mandarich, as he put up solid but unspectacular numbers his first three years. The problem was with his peers. Terry Glenn had a super season in 1996 and put up great numbers the next two years....When he was healthy. Keyshawn Johnson and Eric Mounds broke out in the 1998 season, and even Terrell Owens had a 1,000 yard season in 1998. Jermaine Lewis and Eddie Kennison had shown promise as return men. Harrison didn't seem to match up. Of course, after 1999, it was a different story.
#40 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 January 2014 - 05:24 PM
JohnH19, on 18 Jan 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:
Brady reminds you of Joe Paterno? Okay...
Maybe you've missed it but, unless winning the Super Bowl is the only thing that makes for a successful season, the Pats haven't skipped a beat since Spygate. It's time to let it go.
That must be because he's been blessed with so many HoF quality players around him on the Pats offense for the past 13 years. There's Randy Moss and...and...uh, sorry, you're going to have to help me out here...
1. I don't think they stopped cheating. They still have Ernie Adams, who is a very shady figure that helps them get any edge they can.
2. Belichick's system, which is about structure rather than talent, is tailor-made for Brady. That's why how many HOF and Pro Bowl players he has had around him is completely irrelevant.
Page 2 of 5
oldecapecod 11