The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread

themont85

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

How can you compare a full season of games against 0 games. To say just because a player had the option to play and use that against him when comparing merit is silly. Let me put it this way a player who did not play cannot have a good or bad season if they do not play. But to add to that whether he could physically play or not it was not his decision so you are holding that against him.

As for the default thing firstly you are misunderstanding the way im using it, Manning has played 2 more seasons of games than Brady and therefore been consistent for 100% of the decade. That is my opinion and the way I see it. If you don't agree fair enough. Each to their own.

'Option to play', he didn't play because he didn't do enough to justify himself to play. Manning did. Of course I'm going to hold that against him in an All Decade team.

Btw I dont see this as a Manning/Brady debate. Its who was the most consistant QB of the decade? Because its Brady on the second team of course there will be debate, as other positions. I'm sorry but not playing for a year because you weren't deemed good enough puts you down a notch in a All Decade vote against a guy who has started the whole decade, not for their careers. But yes for All decade in my view.

tallaghtoutlaws

themont85 wrote: »

'Option to play', he didn't play because he didn't do enough to justify himself to play. Manning did. Of course I'm going to hold that against him in an All Decade team.

Btw I dont see this as a Manning/Brady debate. Its who was the most consistant QB of the decade? Because its Brady on the second team of course there will be debate, as other positions. I'm sorry but not playing for a year because you weren't deemed good enough puts you down a notch in a All Decade vote against a guy who has started the whole decade, not for their careers. But yes for All decade in my view.

Manning was drafted in the 1st round as a starter. Brady was drafted in the 6th as a backup. Bledsoe wasn't going to lose his spot to a rookie the year Brady was drafted. Get real there is huge difference in comparison to both situations.

You still seem to be missing my point because you actually answered what I am saying by default.

themont85

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Manning was drafted in the 1st round as a starter. Brady was drafted in the 6th as a backup. Bledsoe wasn't going to lose his spot to a rookie the year Brady was drafted. Get real there is huge difference in comparison to both situations.

You still seem to be missing my point because you actually answered what I am saying by default.

Shouldn't be counted against Manning that he was drafted as a starter and played just because Brady wasn't. I understand this perfectly and what you are saying.

Its an All Decade team, between the 0 and the 9. This counts against a Marshell Faulk for example who contributed between the latter of one decade and start of another. Its unfair. But that's it, it won't effect his standing career wise but in an all decade team where you have to choose across 10, yes it does.

tallaghtoutlaws

themont85 wrote: »

Shouldn't be counted against Manning that he was drafted as a starter and played just because Brady wasn't. I understand this perfectly and what you are saying.

Actually this point isnt what I was saying you misunderstood me on it was actually the below.

Its an All Decade team, between the 0 and the 9. This counts against a Marshell Faulk for example who contributed between the latter of one decade and start of another. Its unfair. But that's it, it won't effect his standing career wise but in an all decade team where you have to choose across 10, yes it does.

At this point you are arguing the same thing I am getting at. The Brady thing was a side note that you have now incorporated as my whole argument.

Whether you count Brady at 9 or 8 Manning still has played all 10 and this by default added with his consistent performance over those 10 years put him in there.

Anyways this seems to be going around in circles and I truly dont give a flying fook about the team of the decade. I actually only interjected originally over the default thing and then all this started.

Hazys

Controversy has been squashed...the nfl actually picked 2 sets of teams equally...so the two QBs were Brady and Manning.

The reporter in the orginal article thought there was only one team not two just because the players were informed first were the ones at the probowl.

So both got on the All Decade team...NFL avoids controversy

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/01/six_patriots_on.html







Still tho Brady >>>>>>>>> Manning

_Buck Rogers

2 teams why not have 3 or 4. Nfl @ coping out

Si Conando

Well there has always been 2 teams chosen, a first and second team, so not a cop out really. Manning was on the first team btw

Hazys

Si Conando wrote: »

Well there has always been 2 teams chosen, a first and second team, so not a cop out really. Manning was on the first team btw

there is no first or second team...here is the full 53 man roster http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8161b0e9&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Its a roster with no depth chart.




btw, an insider* I know from the Pro Football Hall of Fame told me Brady was the unaminous Starter from the voting



*you cant prove that i dont have an insider...so there

Si Conando

Hazys wrote: »

there is no first or second team...here is the full 53 man roster http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8161b0e9&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Its a roster with no depth chart.




btw, an insider* I know from the Pro Football Hall of Fame told me Brady was the unaminous Starter from the voting



*you cant prove that i dont have an insider...so there

There has been a first and second team for every decade in the superbowl era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_1970s_All-Decade_Team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_1980s_All-Decade_Team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_1990s_All-Decade_Team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_2000s_All-Decade_Team

Hazys

Si Conando wrote: »

There has been a first and second team for every decade in the superbowl era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_1970s_All-Decade_Team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_1980s_All-Decade_Team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_1990s_All-Decade_Team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_2000s_All-Decade_Team

For the 2000's all decade team i haven't found 1 article that says there are 2 teams, nowhere on NFL.com does it seprate the roster into 2 teams http://www.nfl.com/history/legends/2000s

The only place i have seen it split into 2 teams is on wikipedia but even the sources wikipedia uses dont split the team up (other than people publishing their votes)...funnily enough the selection process source they use is for the hall of fame vote!!...who' da thunk it that wikipedia could be wrong?

I see that in previous decades they have split the teams into 2 but it appears to be different this decade. For example they have 12 players on the first team offense while only 11 on the second team.

Si Conando

Hazys wrote: »

For the 2000's all decade team i haven't found 1 article that says there are 2 teams, nowhere on NFL.com does it seprate the roster into 2 teams http://www.nfl.com/history/legends/2000s

The only place i have seen it split into 2 teams is on wikipedia but even the sources wikipedia uses dont split the team up (other than people publishing their votes)...funnily enough the selection process source they use is for the hall of fame vote!!...who' da thunk it that wikipedia could be wrong?

I see that in previous decades they have split the teams into 2 but it appears to be different this decade. For example they have 12 players on the first team offense while only 11 on the second team.

Seems pretty legit to me considering the players on the 1st and 2nd teams, and the fact that its been that way in past decades. They've never included a spot for a fullback in the all decade teams, so i presume lo neal accounts for the 12th man.

bruschi

I havent seen any two team split either? other than that reliable source wikipedia.

oh, and Warren Sapp has made the 1990 team, and also the 2000 team, but he only played 1995 - 2007. seems like some in here think he shouldnt make it as he never played a full decade! never mind making it in 2 decades!

themont85

bruschi wrote: »

I havent seen any two team split either? other than that reliable source wikipedia.

oh, and Warren Sapp has made the 1990 team, and also the 2000 team, but he only played 1995 - 2007. seems like some in here think he shouldnt make it as he never played a full decade! never mind making it in 2 decades!

I never said that. There are of course some guys who span only a few years either side of a decade who 'deserve' to be in both. It is though not advantagous to be a running back for instance drated say in 1995 or 96 compared to a guy drafted in 91 or 92 for the 90s team. The guy born in the first age catagory peak years as a back may be 97 to 2002 for instance where as the guy born in early part of the decade has a much better chance of making it as he has more miles clocked in that given decade. For some positions it doesn't really matter, in fact most. But for Rbs where there is a high attritional level and a shorter span then for a Qb for instance there is.

Thats why these lists are kind of stupid, still fun to debate different positions and guys in the same age catogary. For instance- Emmet Smith or Barry Sanders in the 90s if we were to pick just a starting team.

Hazys

Si Conando wrote: »

Seems pretty legit to me considering the players on the 1st and 2nd teams, and the fact that its been that way in past decades. They've never included a spot for a fullback in the all decade teams, so i presume lo neal accounts for the 12th man.

I suppose your right, especially the QB position http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_2000s_All-Decade_Team#Offense :cool:

themont85

Hazys wrote: »

there is no first or second team...here is the full 53 man roster http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8161b0e9&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Its a roster with no depth chart.




btw, an insider* I know from the Pro Football Hall of Fame told me Brady was the unaminous Starter from the voting



*you cant prove that i dont have an insider...so there

I know your only joking, well at least I hope you are, but plenty of the voters publish their teams. Isn't Peter King a voter? He had Manning anyway :P

Hazys

Most of the Saints arrived Monday afternoon at their hotel in Miami. The Pro Bowlers who had already been in town didn't greet them in jerseys or suits, but instead dressed as bellhops.

http://www.wwltv.com/news/slideshows/Photos-Saints-greeted-at-hotel-by-Pro-Bowler--83267662.html

That was funny, this is just weird and really scary:



http://sportsbybrooks.com/finally-pix-of-brad-childress-as-female-stewardess-26736

davyjose

Just a heads up, over the coming days Sky Sports 2,3 & 4 are showing all the America's Games from the last 15 years or so.

Packers & Denver are Thursday evening/Night. New England Friday Morning/afternoon
Colts friday night etc.

Anyway, it's worth looking ahead and setting the old +box.

tallaghtoutlaws

davyjose wrote: »

Just a heads up, over the coming days Sky Sports 2,3 & 4 are showing all the America's Games from the last 15 years or so.

Packers & Denver are Thursday evening/Night. New England Friday Morning/afternoon
Colts friday night etc.

Anyway, it's worth looking ahead and setting the old +box.

Great minds think a like done and done

cooker3

Some pics of Favre taken the day after the NFC championship game.
First of the ankle


and of his hamstring


Ironman.

kmart6

Just saw them before I came over here! I think those pictures can put an end to the argument that he coulda ran for 5-10 yards on that last play!

themont85

kmart6 wrote: »

Just saw them before I came over here! I think those pictures can put an end to the argument that he coulda ran for 5-10 yards on that last play!

Yeah tough ba$tard. Still doesnt explain the gastly throw from someone of his experience in that position.

Who is the best commentating team in the boards opinion? Aside from Buck, I like all the lead network guys. Aikman is underrated imo, hard to be considered elite when you have that plank beside you.

davyjose

Saints were roughing the passer all night. What do you expect when they can break the rules with impunity.

Also Hazys, the "Brady >>>>> Manning" thing is getting old. Try again.

kmart6

I really prefer Al and Cris to anyone else! There's something about Al Michaels that really makes me enjoy listening to his commentary!!

eagle eye

My fav color commentator is now Jon Gruden. I really enjoyed listening to him doing the Monday night games this season.

Color Commentators for me in this order

Jon Gruden
Phil Simms
Chris Collinsworth
Dan Fouts
Troy Aikman

The one guy I cannot stand is Dan Dierdorf.

The main commentators don't bother me so much. Al Michaels is great, Jim Nantz, Greg Gumbel and Mike Tirico are also excellent.

Karlusss

Let's just be thankful Tony Kornheiser isn't around to ruin entire games of football any more.

eagle eye

Karlusss wrote: »

Let's just be thankful Tony Kornheiser isn't around to ruin entire games of football any more.

Ugh he was dreadful, but I'd still have him ahead of Dierdorf.

delaad

There was an old line about the Packers, kinda politically incorrect now, which went "if you were black in Green Bay, you were either playing for the Pack, or just passing through"

kmart6

Gruden has been quite entertaining this season actually!

cooker3

Yeah I think all the main commentators are pretty good. I do miss Madden and Michaels. They were my favourite pairing. Gruden is good and a massive improvement over the joker they had previously. He was the only commentator to actively annoy me.

themont85

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/us_sport/article7013861.ece

Funny video on the UK Times site in support of 'Who dat' nation. Some serious toffs on their staff!