NFL... Playoffs?!?

[Raistlin]

I agree with everything Del just said. I'm also rooting for the Giants because they are not the Patriots, and another Super Bowl upset would be oh so sweet.

[edczxcvbnm]

In all honesty, I don't know why NE is the favorite to win. I can see the NY Defense get enough pressure to force some punts but I can't envision the NE defense doing the same thing. I think Eli will get the time to rip NE apart. Am I crazy in thinking this?

[charliepanayi]

I imagine New England will start narrow favourites, but it's not like four years ago when the Giants were the huge underdogs. I'm still inclined to see either a narrow Giants win or New England going nuts and winning by a mile.

[escobert]

really the only good chance NE has on defense is Wilfork and Anderson who the Bears couldn't get anything out of his last few years there. If those two can get any pressure on Eli they may have a chance but who knows. I agree that the Giants have a MUCH better defense and running game. The pats really don't have a running game besides what they did with Hernandez and I doubt the giants are going to overlook that.

[chionos]

Wilfork's the key. If NE can stop NY's run game (which wasn't all that impressive last week) and Wilfork can hit Eli in the teeth a couple times early, NE will have an edge if only because their offense finds holes like nobody's business. Oh, and the other key to the game, has there been any word on Gronkowski's ankle? Even if he plays, if he's not 100% that's really going to hurt the pressure they can put on NY's secondary making it easier to blitz and m2m.

[escobert]

he hasn't practiced yet that I know of.

[The Captain]

This is almost exactly how the New York media will react: Eli is the new Jeter, Peyton is the new A-Rod (minus roids). Eli is clutch and a leader by example, Peyton puts up crazy regular season numbers but doesn't come through when it counts. I guarantee you will be hearing this story over and over and over again. The NY Media loves to bring everything back to the Yanks.

Now, if the Pats win, here's the question: Is Brady the best QB of all-time? 4 Super Bowl rings would match Montana and Bradshaw and he has shown he can play on a level with Peyton Manning and Brees in terms of individual numbers as well.

As I stated earlier, I think the Giants win this game though frankly, I agree, it wouldn't be an upset. The Giants ARE the more balanced team.

Take care all.

[chionos]

Is Brady the best QB of all-time? 4 Super Bowl rings would match Montana and Bradshaw and he has shown he can play on a level with Peyton Manning and Brees in terms of individual numbers as well.

Absolutely not. Not even top 5. Brady is overrated. (Not terribly overrated, he's obviously not a bad quarterback or anything) Brady benefits greatly from the offensive style of his team (both in terms of general mentality and play-calling), his offensive line, and his receivers. He's not a scrambler and is horrible out of the pocket, he's not the most accurate QB, he's not the smartest QB, so what is he? He's cocksure and poised, that's the area in which he excels the most, but if that's the sole arbiter of quality QBing then Joe Namath is the greatest ever. And Brady's not even all that poised when the D's getting good pressure on him. If he hadn't lucked out with awesome inside receiver after awesome inside receiver, there wouldn't be even a hint of a suggestion that he's the greatest. I think # of SB rings is an overinflated stat for all-time QB ranking. I don't even think Brady's the best of the modern QB's, perhaps not even in the top 3 or even in the top 5 now that I think of it. It's also growing more and more unfair to compare a modern QB with any QB of the past because of the way the NFL has taken it upon itself to coddle all the poor little pussy QBs who can't take a hit, which is duplicitous as all get out because they don't really care at all about the health of the players themselves, it's really just about not wanting to risk injuring the faces of franchises and the faces of the NFL. All about the money. So yeah, sorry about the rant, but it's simply preposterous to hear people talk about ranking Brady #1, just friggin ludicrous, I don't care if he wins 10 rings.

[Del Murder]

Brady is not the best ever. The Patriots still managed to win 11 games without him. He was a product of great coaching. The Colts managed to win all of 2 games without the real best QB ever.

[charliepanayi]

Is Brady the best QB of all-time? 4 Super Bowl rings would match Montana and Bradshaw and he has shown he can play on a level with Peyton Manning and Brees in terms of individual numbers as well.

Absolutely not. Not even top 5. Brady is overrated. (Not terribly overrated, he's obviously not a bad quarterback or anything) Brady benefits greatly from the offensive style of his team (both in terms of general mentality and play-calling), his offensive line, and his receivers. He's not a scrambler and is horrible out of the pocket, he's not the most accurate QB, he's not the smartest QB, so what is he? He's cocksure and poised, that's the area in which he excels the most, but if that's the sole arbiter of quality QBing then Joe Namath is the greatest ever. And Brady's not even all that poised when the D's getting good pressure on him. If he hadn't lucked out with awesome inside receiver after awesome inside receiver, there wouldn't be even a hint of a suggestion that he's the greatest. I think # of SB rings is an overinflated stat for all-time QB ranking. I don't even think Brady's the best of the modern QB's, perhaps not even in the top 3 or even in the top 5 now that I think of it. It's also growing more and more unfair to compare a modern QB with any QB of the past because of the way the NFL has taken it upon itself to coddle all the poor little pussy QBs who can't take a hit, which is duplicitous as all get out because they don't really care at all about the health of the players themselves, it's really just about not wanting to risk injuring the faces of franchises and the faces of the NFL. All about the money. So yeah, sorry about the rant, but it's simply preposterous to hear people talk about ranking Brady #1, just friggin ludicrous, I don't care if he wins 10 rings.

I think your rant is more to do with your hatred for the Patriots than anything else. Anyway there is no 'best quarterback ever', it's ridiculous to try and pick one person.

[The Captain]

Fans try to determine where players fit on a greatest ever scale to try and give context to sports. People love lists, they love to debate what era is better, but frankly, if you are in the discussion, that's all that matters.

Here's the thing: Best QB doesn't mean best PLAYER. I am in no way saying Brady is the best PLAYER ever or even in the Top 5. However, what a QB is supposed to do: Make throws, score points, hang in the pocket, lead and most importantly win, it is pretty clear he IS in that discussion. Who exactly is ahead of him? Nearly every other QB has flaws as well. Montana is about untouchable since he was the focal point for every Super Bowl, but Bradshaw, despite being 4-0 in the Super Bowl won some of the games due to his defense. Peyton is probably the best regular season QB of all time but has been inconsistent in the playoffs and in fact has a losing postseason record all-time. Brees and Rodgers still have a lot of career left. The older QB's, Unitas, Starr, etc, etc deserve mention but they played a different brand of football. I would argue they were better PLAYERS but notbetter QB's.

To underscore, I think Brady is a Top 5 QB, not a top 5 Player of all time. I'd say Jim Brown was the best player of all time, followed by in some order Walter Payton, LT, Jerry Rice and Montana.

Take care all and go Giants.

[Del Murder]

Yeah, Montana is the best QB ever. He's really untouchable.

As for best player ever my top choices would be Jerry Rice or Barry Sanders. Sanders was pretty amazing.

Jim Brown is also pretty good, but Barry Sanders did pretty much what Brown did but in a 16-game season.

[Sephex]

I am rooting for the Giants half-heatedly and for my company square pool to net me some money. So I guess I am rooting for who gives me money!

All joking aside, I do think the Giants have this one for many reasons that have already been stated.

[Bunny]

It's also growing more and more unfair to compare a modern QB with any QB of the past because of the way the NFL has taken it upon itself to coddle all the poor little pussy QBs who can't take a hit, which is duplicitous as all get out because they don't really care at all about the health of the players themselves, it's really just about not wanting to risk injuring the faces of franchises and the faces of the NFL. All about the money.

This is largely bulltrout. The NFL, like anything, evolves over time. As medical research is done, the game will evolve to best reflect said research. If we are going to say that it is unfair to compare Drew Brees' achievements to that of Dan Marino, then we should also make a caveat to say that it is unfair to compare Dan Marion, or any relatively modern player, to any of the first great football players who played the game without pads and a single leather helmet. The game evolves and the rules evolve with it. Get over it.

The last half of that specific paragraph makes no sense. Does the NFL care about money? Yes. The NFL is, first and foremost, a business. Without money, the sport would die. However, without big names like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Bress, etc. fans would lose interest and the money would wither and die out. Big name players like Brady and Manning, who "can't take a hit" are one of the key reasons that the game is as lucrative as it is these days. So yes, the NFL cares about money, but it also cares about big name players because they are the gateway into making money.

Both of these 'arguments' irk me every time I hear someone utter them without actually know what they are talking about.

As for Brady being the best QB ever? No. Not by a longshot. He's certainly up there with some of the greats, but he isn't leading the pack by any means. Saying the Brady is a horrible QB or that he is overrated is, well, dumb.

[Raistlin]

Peyton is probably the best regular season QB of all time but has been inconsistent in the playoffs and in fact has a losing postseason record all-time.

I think that is an unfair assessment without some context. I am not huge Peyton fan, but the teams he has had around him have not exactly been stellar. He's had some great skill position talent (Harrison, Wayne, Edge), but the rest of the team, especially the defense, has generally been lacking -- with the exception of a couple of DLs who could really rush the QB. I would still say that Peyton has the most pure skill of any current QB (though he may not remain in the "current" category much longer), and is very arguably one of the best ever.

It's about impossible to arrive at any consensus for "best QB" because there's no consensus as to what "best" means. Pure skill? Stats? Late game clutchness? Record? Most people use some combination of those factors (among others), but give them wildly varying degrees of weight (A lot of people emphasize Super Bowl wins, which is retarded).

I agree with Del and Cap'n that Montana is the best QB ever, probably regardless of definition. Brady isn't close. As for best player all time, comparing positions is tough, but Jerry Rice is definitely up there.