Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Peter King's All-Decade Team

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    themont85
    Registered Users Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭themont85


    Morrisseeee wrote: »
    Lets forget about stats for a moment (they lie don't they:p) but I'm just wondering if you switched both QB's from their respective teams (years ago), would you reckon Manning would have won a few more SB's and would Brady have been as successfull ??

    Yes and no.


  • Options
    #33
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,901 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    frostie500 wrote: »
    Bradys stat lines:
    Year % yds TD int att
    2001 63.9 2843 18 12 413
    2002 62.1 3764 28 14 601
    2003 60.2 3620 23 12 527
    2004 60.8 3692 28 14 474
    2005 63.0 4110 26 14 530
    2006 61.8 3529 24 12 516
    2007 68.9 4806 50 08 578
    2009 65.7 4848 29 13 611***projection

    Average:63.3 3901 28 12 531
    Cassel : 63.4 3693 21 11 516
    To give a fuller picture of how small the differences are between these stat line this one is done using a projection for Cassel with 531 attempts, Brady's seasonal average:
    63.4 3801 22 11

    I dont view his stat line to be an enormous difference to Brady's. The team went 11-4 in the games Cassel started and became one of only three teams to miss out on the playoffs after winning 11.

    Bear in mind I'm not saying 'Cassel is nearly as good as Brady' just that Manning has been durable, prolific and in all liklihood Indy couldnt replace him with someone that would nearly match his career averages
    The difference is that Brady gets it done, he makes the playoffs and he wins in the playoffs.
    Thats been my point all along.
    You also have to remember that until 2007 Brady was throwing to David Givens, David Patten, Deion Branch, Reche Caldwell, and Jabar Gaffney, none of whom has any chance of making the HOF.
    Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and Edgerrin James.


  • Options
    #34
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    eagle eye wrote: »
    The difference is that Brady gets it done, he makes the playoffs and he wins in the playoffs.
    Thats been my point all along.
    You also have to remember that until 2007 Brady was throwing to David Givens, David Patten, Deion Branch, Reche Caldwell, and Jabar Gaffney, none of whom has any chance of making the HOF.
    Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and Edgerrin James.

    Manning's throwing to Collie and Garcon this season. Let's not forget that.

    My other argument for Manning would be what he has between his ears. His reading of defenses, implementing the "no-huddle". Whereas the Brains behind the Pats is more down to the Coach.


  • Options
    #35
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,901 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    davyjose wrote: »
    Manning's throwing to Collie and Garcon this season. Let's not forget that.

    My other argument for Manning would be what he has between his ears. His reading of defenses, implementing the "no-huddle". Whereas the Brains behind the Pats is more down to the Coach.
    I've never said anything against Manning's regular season record, its his postseson record that is terrible.
    He could never be rated on the same level as the greats with that record.

    And it all comes back to the same thing, people keep harping on that the Colts would not be nearly as good without Manning, but that also means that he has to take all the blame for all their poor performances in the playoffs.

    He has thrown 22 tds and 17 ints. to Harrison, Wayne, Clark and James.

    Brady has thrown 26 tds and 12 ints.

    Clutch is clutch and its what its all about at the end of the day. There must be something wrong between Manning's ears at playoff time.


  • Options
    #36
    frostie500
    Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    davyjose wrote: »
    Manning's throwing to Collie and Garcon this season. Let's not forget that.

    My other argument for Manning would be what he has between his ears. His reading of defenses, implementing the "no-huddle". Whereas the Brains behind the Pats is more down to the Coach.

    yeah Manning has to get a hell of a lot of credit for his productivity with this group, and remember that he has also had to play numerous linemen over the last few years because the Colts let them go in post seasons. Last year when Saturday was injured Manning got the line to still function as a top unit.

    I wouldnt really say that there is too much difference 'between the ears.' I do think that Manning is probably the best player ever at dissecting a defence and its intentions etc but Brady is no slouch in that game either


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    frostie500
    Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I've never said anything against Manning's regular season record, its his postseson record that is terrible.
    He could never be rated on the same level as the greats with that record.

    And it all comes back to the same thing, people keep harping on that the Colts would not be nearly as good without Manning, but that also means that he has to take all the blame for all their poor performances in the playoffs.

    You've said things like that a few times, does Manning have to take responsibility for a pathetic defence that the Colts had for most of this decade? Is it coincidental that the only year they had a good defence and a leader on that side of the ball on a par with Manning on the offence(Bob Sanders) that they won the Superbowl?


  • Options
    #38
    themont85
    Registered Users Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭themont85


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I've never said anything against Manning's regular season record, its his postseson record that is terrible.
    He could never be rated on the same level as the greats with that record.

    And it all comes back to the same thing, people keep harping on that the Colts would not be nearly as good without Manning, but that also means that he has to take all the blame for all their poor performances in the playoffs.

    He has thrown 22 tds and 17 ints. to Harrison, Wayne, Clark and James.

    Brady has thrown 26 tds and 12 ints.

    Clutch is clutch and its what its all about at the end of the day. There must be something wrong between Manning's ears at playoff time.

    Must have been something wrong with Brady too the last two playoff runs when he had the ball in his hands with probably one and definately another SB at stake. Then again he didn't have automatic Adam or a defence at its peak behind him.

    Clutch isn't a playoff run its a moments, game winning drives. The Patriots have been better drilled and an overall better team than the Colts in the playoffs, obviousely this has an effect on stats.

    One thing that characterised the difference in Manning and Brady in the playoffs this decade was the 2001 Raiders game and the 2005 Steelers game for each respective player. In both those games both players got huge slices of luck to keep them in the game. The difference was that after both set their things up for FG, their respective kickers did different things. One in a ridiculous snow storm and the other a highly makeable kick. Who missed?


  • Options
    #39
    RichTea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭RichTea


    Brady v Manning threads are awful.


  • Options
    #40
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,901 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    frostie500 wrote: »
    You've said things like that a few times, does Manning have to take responsibility for a pathetic defence that the Colts had for most of this decade? Is it coincidental that the only year they had a good defence and a leader on that side of the ball on a par with Manning on the offence(Bob Sanders) that they won the Superbowl?
    Did you know that the year they won the Superbowl that Manning threw 3 tds and 7 ints. and had a horrendous QB rating of 70.5 in the playoffs?
    Are you saying that Manning was the reason they won it that year?


  • Options
    #41
    frostie500
    Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Did you know that the year they won the Superbowl that Manning threw 3 tds and 7 ints. and had a horrendous QB rating of 70.5 in the playoffs?
    Are you saying that Manning was the reason they won it that year?

    Are you saying Manning was the reason they lost it the other years?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    Can we have one thread that doesn't turn into a Brady V Manning thread or Pats V Colts thread please? Im a Pats fan and think the world of Brady but I let him do the talking on the field rather than me arguing about his abilities. I have the greatest respect for both QBs and besides every body has their own opinion to a team of the decade hence Peter Kings opinion that started this thread.

    The Peterson/LT debate is much better than Brady/Manning at this stage. LT would clearly be in my team of the decade. Peterson hasn't been around long enough to warrant it. Although in 10 years time he clearly will be in the team of the decade.


  • Options
    #43
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,901 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    frostie500 wrote: »
    Are you saying Manning was the reason they lost it the other years?
    Yes.


  • Options
    #44
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Yes.


    :pac: You never fail eagle eye.


  • Options
    #45
    jdivision
    Registered Users Posts: 4,260 ✭✭✭jdivision


    eagle eye wrote: »
    LT has averaged 4.4 ypc over his career. Over 8 full seasons he has averaged 1476 yards per season.

    AP is in his third year, over his first two full seasons he has averaged 5.1 ypc and averaged 1550 yards per season.

    But he can't block, isn't a receiving threat out of the backfield and fumbles too much


  • Options
    #46
    ReacherCreature
    Registered Users Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭ReacherCreature


    eagle eye wrote: »
    LT has been very, very good, but I'd have AP even though its only his 3rd year in the league.

    It's based on a decade in the league. Who knows if Peterson'll last that long eg if he gets an injury. A Vikings fan was telling me that he's brilliant no doubt but if he keeps getting hit and fumbles that coupled with his workload, he'll be diminished in no time. Of course, we'll have to wait and see.

    Looking at that OL, he didn't get it wrong, it's top class.


  • Options
    #47
    jdivision
    Registered Users Posts: 4,260 ✭✭✭jdivision


    LT in his prime was one of the best players I've ever seen, he didn't run, he glided, even in Wembley you could see that element of greatness and he didn't play that well that day.


  • Options
    #48
    ReacherCreature
    Registered Users Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭ReacherCreature


    jdivision wrote: »
    LT in his prime was one of the best players I've ever seen, he didn't run, he glided, even in Wembley you could see that element of greatness and he didn't play that well that day.

    I don't think anyone here will disagree. Tomlinson is probably the best choice for the decade team.


  • Options
    #49
    themont85
    Registered Users Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭themont85


    Running backs have been a bit lean this decade. Last decade we had Emmet Smith, Sanders, Terrell Davies and Thurman Thomas 3 of which were HoF and TD has a shout down the line but injury may cost him. This decade we had Tiki Barber, Tomilson and laterly guys like AD and now Johnson. I don't think it is a stellar as the 90s as AD and Johnson will likely do their best in the 10s. A guy overlooked possibly because he spanned two decades-Marshell Faulk would get into my team. The problem is that he only was great at the end of the 90s and at the start of the decade.


  • Options
    #50
    LightningBolt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭LightningBolt


    Richard Seymour surely deserved to be picked at DE over Aaron Smith? The guy was a workhorse although injuries probably stopped him from being picked.


  • Options
    #51
    jdivision
    Registered Users Posts: 4,260 ✭✭✭jdivision


    Curtis Martin and edge were fairly special, Ricky Watters was too but walked away too early in the noughties. The Bus provided some magic at times and Priest was spectacularly efficient


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Lothaar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 473 ✭✭Lothaar


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Yes.

    EE - pinning wins and losses on a QB is ridiculous. I'm surprised that such a regular poster on the AF forum understands so little about football :( Seriously, dude.

    And, while we're being serious, please stop clogging up threads with multiple pages of Manning v Brady rhetoric. There is more to football than those two players.


  • Options
    #53
    themont85
    Registered Users Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭themont85


    jdivision wrote: »
    Curtis Martin and edge were fairly special, Ricky Watters was too but walked away too early in the noughties. The Bus provided some magic at times and Priest was spectacularly efficient

    Good call about Curtis. He is kinda like Faulk in that his best work spanned the end half of one decade into the next one.


  • Options
    #54
    _Buck Rogers
    Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭_Buck Rogers


    tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »
    Can we have one thread that doesn't turn into a Brady V Manning thread or Pats V Colts thread please? Im a Pats fan and think the world of Brady but I let him do the talking on the field rather than me arguing about his abilities. I have the greatest respect for both QBs and besides every body has their own opinion to a team of the decade hence Peter Kings opinion that started this thread.

    The Peterson/LT debate is much better than Brady/Manning at this stage. LT would clearly be in my team of the decade. Peterson hasn't been around long enough to warrant it. Although in 10 years time he clearly will be in the team of the decade.

    Or will johnson bet him to it:D.

    LT easily in my opinion. AP wouldn't even be a second choice for me!

    There is very little that I disagree with in kings team of the decade. In certain positions there is just a cluster of equally talented and deserving players that you could have a list as long as your arm of who else could be there, such as Defensive END, WR etc.

    Ward would be the only player on that list that I'd say doesn't deserve to be there.


  • Options
    #55
    themont85
    Registered Users Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭themont85


    If I went back to the 1st of January and I was asked who do I want as my running back or whatever knowing what each would do in the decade it would have to be LT. But tbh, I was more of a Faulk fan cos he also did serious damage from passes and played in and was effective in a passing offence, the Greatest show on turf. But the fact that he spanned between two decades limits him. For that reason I think the all decade concept is unfair on certain players but it is what it is I suppose so LT has to be the pick!

    I still think TO deserves a shout.


  • Options
    #56
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    themont85 wrote: »
    I still think TO deserves a shout.

    We all know his abilities but the problem is his numbers don't add up. He wasn't magnificent at the Cowboys and definitely hasn't done anything at the Bills. This will stop him getting into any team of the decade. At the Cowboys they threw to him either way too much it made it looked like he dropped everything and then Romo found Witten as the other better option.


Advertisement