NFL 2012

[JWIV]

The Ravens don't even need Flacco to be that good.  Their defense is damned good.

You'd think that, but the last two years, it's been Flacco's flaws that have kept them out of the Super Bowl. And this year they are without Suggs, and Lewis and Reed are a year older. I don't see them getting to the Super Bowl if Flacco doesn't take that next step up.

It's going to have to be the Flacco and Rice show this year.  The pass rush is non-existent right now with the loss of Suggs which was letting Dalton pick apart their secondary.  The end score may not reflect it, but Dalton was actually having a pretty decent day up until mid-way through the 3rd quarter.

[ghost]

The Ravens don't even need Flacco to be that good.  Their defense is damned good.

You'd think that, but the last two years, it's been Flacco's flaws that have kept them out of the Super Bowl. And this year they are without Suggs, and Lewis and Reed are a year older. I don't see them getting to the Super Bowl if Flacco doesn't take that next step up.

A lot of getting to the Superbowl is having your team click together at the right time.  And there's a certain amount of luck involved, I believe.  I still think they will be a contender even if he isn't amazing, but if he is look out. 

[Malakili]

The Ravens don't even need Flacco to be that good.  Their defense is damned good.

You'd think that, but the last two years, it's been Flacco's flaws that have kept them out of the Super Bowl. And this year they are without Suggs, and Lewis and Reed are a year older. I don't see them getting to the Super Bowl if Flacco doesn't take that next step up.

Flacco outplayed Brady in last year's AFC championship game.  He played more than well enough.

[HaemishM]

Pats got to the Super Bowl, Flacco got to watch it on TV. He didn't play well enough.

[ghost]

You can't blame the difference in that game on Flacco.  That was a 50/50 game.  You could have tossed a coin to get the winner. 

[Ingmar]

That's the same argument that people try to use on me to blame the 49ers not advancing on Alex Smith, who fumbled exactly zero punt returns.  

There are dozens of players who could do better in any given game, it is silly to blame the QB every time, especially when he outplays his counterpart.

[shiznitz]

The Ravens don't even need Flacco to be that good.  Their defense is damned good.

They were playing the Bengals.  Let's not be hasty.  Will they be a top 10 defense, highly likely, but that opponent is a not a real defensive test.  I thought BGE did a solid job most of the night.

[ghost]

Their defense is going to be good.  I'm thinking they'll be damned good. 

[Malakili]

Pats got to the Super Bowl, Flacco got to watch it on TV. He didn't play well enough.

He was 22/36 for ~300 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, and threw a perfect game winning pass that was dropped by Lee Evans in the end zone with 20 seconds to go, followed by a missed field goal that he got his team WELL into range for that would've gotten the game to over time.  Could he have played better, sure I guess so, but to say Flacco needs to be better for them to get over the hump is really ignoring the fact that he got them there last year and his team let him down at the critical moment.

Shit, I don't even know why I'm bothering to make this argument, I don't even care about Baltimore or Flacco.  Its a case of this I guess:
 

[HaemishM]

A real elite QB would have won that game. 

[Segoris]

Thanks totwo touchdown passes not completing and Cundiff missing a chip shot, a real elite QB did win that game

Though I agree, Flacco was good enough last year and so far seems better this year.

[Nebu]

Flacco outplayed Brady in last year's AFC championship game.  He played more than well enough.

Brady would have put up 500 yards against the Pats defense last year.  Flacco had the easier time of it... by a long shot.

[Paelos]

For some reason the general populace is obsessed with quarterbacks when it comes to the NFL. So much so that they honestly believe the reason I team isn't successful falls almost exclusively on the quarterback.

There's a simple reality about what it takes to win a championship (with a couple of notable exceptions). You have to have one outstanding half of your game (be it offense or defense), and a passable version of the opposing half. However, when people see an amazing offense, they automatically lose their minds and declare THAT to be the thing that wins. You'll hear silly bullshit like "It's a passing league" or "The QB is the most important position in sports" or "the old saying that defense wins championship is crap."

If you look at the last 10 Super Bowls, you see this trend. You have the Giants, Packers, Saints, Steelers, Giants, Colts, Steelers, Pats, Pats, Bucs. In those you had Offense, Defense, Offense, Defense, Defense, Offense, Defense, Both, Defense, Defense. Overall it's mostly defense. Now people point to QBs because they say you couldn't win without a good QB. To me it seems like those are the same people who made them "good" or "elite" QBs by whether they won the super bowl. So it's sort of self-selecting. For example, most people say Brady, Rodgers, and Brees are elite. What about Stafford? He tossed for over 5,000 yards. Some say, oh he's too young. What they mean is, oh he doesn't have a ring. On the flip side, Eli was 5th in 2011 and has two rings, yet STILL isn't considered elite, even though he threw for more than Rodgers. People will say, oh he throws too many picks. Really? You mean the whole two more than Drew Brees did last year?

When you get down to it. I'll always take the team with an awesome facet to their game that's well-rounded on the other side. That's why I really like Baltimore and SF this year.

[01101010]

For some reason the general populace is obsessed with quarterbacks when it comes to the NFL. So much so that they honestly believe the reason I team isn't successful falls almost exclusively on the quarterback.

There's a simple reality about what it takes to win a championship (with a couple of notable exceptions). You have to have one outstanding half of your game (be it offense or defense), and a passable version of the opposing half. However, when people see an amazing offense, they automatically lose their minds and declare THAT to be the thing that wins. You'll hear silly bullshit like "It's a passing league" or "The QB is the most important position in sports" or "the old saying that defense wins championship is crap."

If you look at the last 10 Super Bowls, you see this trend. You have the Giants, Packers, Saints, Steelers, Giants, Colts, Steelers, Pats, Pats, Bucs. In those you had Offense, Defense, Offense, Defense, Defense, Offense, Defense, Both, Defense, Defense. Overall it's mostly defense. Now people point to QBs because they say you couldn't win without a good QB. To me it seems like those are the same people who made them "good" or "elite" QBs by whether they won the super bowl. So it's sort of self-selecting. For example, most people say Brady, Rodgers, and Brees are elite. What about Stafford? He tossed for over 5,000 yards. Some say, oh he's too young. What they mean is, oh he doesn't have a ring. On the flip side, Eli was 5th in 2011 and has two rings, yet STILL isn't considered elite, even though he threw for more than Rodgers. People will say, oh he throws too many picks. Really? You mean the whole two more than Drew Brees did last year?

When you get down to it. I'll always take the team with an awesome facet to their game that's well-rounded on the other side. That's why I really like Baltimore and SF this year.

What exactly does Baltimore have that is awesome exactly? I'll reserve judgement till game 7-8 when their age begins to show (just like Pittsburgh's...though they'll likely start earlier), but I honestly would like to know what part of Baltimore stands out as awesome.

As for the QB thing being the penultimate position in determining and NFL team's prowess... the Browns are poster children for chasing that dream. Ever searching for that ultimate QB while neglecting the rest of the team around him has proven fairly lucrative. 

Who is more elite: Montana, Marino, Elway? 

[shiznitz]

I think Marino did the most with the least.  Steve Young's success suggests that Montana had very good support behind him.

[Paelos]

What exactly does Baltimore have that is awesome exactly?

Well for starters they scored the most of any team in the NFL this week. Ray Rice is pretty awesome as he went for over 6 yards a carry. Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are still awesome even though they are old. Dennis Pitta, Anquan Boldin, and Torrey Smith are going to provide an awesome core of receiver options. Oh and Haloti Ngata is awesome as a nosetackle. That guy is an absolute BEAST in the middle.

[Sjofn]

Eli isn't considered elite because he's Eli.



That is not the face of an elite quarterback. <3

[ghost]

Marino blew monkeys.  God he sucked.

[Ingmar]

Steve Young's success suggests that Montana had very good support behind him Steve Young was fucking awesome.

[Sjofn]

How awesome could he be if Alex Smith broke one of his records!

[Trippy]

Who is more elite: Montana, Marino, Elway? 

Elway.

[Nebu]

Marino had the arm, Elway had the guts, and Montana had the vision.  Together they would be a super QB.

[Tannhauser]

Eli isn't considered elite because he's Eli.



That is not the face of an elite quarterback. <3

"ZOMG, is he drinking out of my juice box?"

Seriously, despite Manningface, Eli is an elite QB.  He has another Super Bowl or two still in him.  I'm not a Giants fan, but you have to respect the fact they win when they have to.  

[ghost]

Elway was the guy.  Marino was awful.

[Ingmar]

Who is more elite: Montana, Marino, Elway? 

Elway.

1-3 in Big Game. 

[Trippy]

2 - 3

Elway carried the team to the first 3 Super Bowls. Those Broncos teams were not that good. The fact that they got blown out in 2 of the 3 Super Bowls just reinforced that. It was only after TD came along and the defense got better and Elway didn't have to try and win it himself yet again did they win a couple.

Montana was on much better teams, except for maybe the first Super Bowl winning team.

[Chimpy]

Elway also won what was quite possibly the most closely matched SuperBowl in terms of the quality of the two teams to pick up his first ring.

And Sjofn, Elway's horseface is just as bad as the dopey Eli-face :-p

[Sjofn]

Elway's face is pretty derp too, it's true.

[ghost]

 

[HaemishM]

If you look at the last 10 Super Bowls, you see this trend. You have the Giants, Packers, Saints, Steelers, Giants, Colts, Steelers, Pats, Pats, Bucs. In those you had Offense, Defense, Offense, Defense, Defense, Offense, Defense, Both, Defense, Defense. Overall it's mostly defense.

Actually let me chart that.

Giants - I would say the defense was just as important if not more so than the offense for this team. Their pass rush in the Super Bowl decided that as much as Eli. So BOTH.
Packers - One thing forgotten is that the Pack's defense was CRUSHING people that year, especially late. And they found a running game they hadn't had all season. Then they lost both last year. So BOTH.
Saints - Both facets of their game were awesome that year. Their defense, bounties and all was just killing motherfuckers.
Steelers - Defense. Offense was good but not great.
Giants - Defense won them this Super Bowl as well. Eli did well but wasn't GREAT, just good.
Colts - Offense was great, but this was the one year their defense stood out as not just passable, but really really good. Bob Sanders was doing his Polamalu impression and Freeney was a beast.
Steelers - ALL DEFENSE. Pre-RapistBerger had a terrible game on a good year with Bettis bowling people over.
Pats - Defense with an elite QB leading an otherwise mediocre offense.
Pats - Defense with an elite QB leading an otherwise mediocre offense.
Bucs - Defense, but Brad Johnson was actually lights out in that Gruden offense that year. Still not great but good.

[Paelos]

I disagree with you on the Saints. Their defense was still shitty, bounties or otherwise.

They were 25th in yards allowed that year, and 20th in points per game. They just outscored the shit out of everyone. It's one of the few anomolies I could find where a team was just inept defensively and won a title.

[ghost]

The Saints defense was much better in the playoffs than the regular season.  They came up big in the actual superbowl against Manning, as well.

[HaemishM]

I disagree with you on the Saints. Their defense was still shitty, bounties or otherwise.

They were 25th in yards allowed that year, and 20th in points per game. They just outscored the shit out of everyone. It's one of the few anomolies I could find where a team was just inept defensively and won a title.

Sacks and turnovers is where their defense stood out that year. And as Ghost said, they were killing people in the playoffs.

[Trippy]

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-09-05/super-bowl-2012-defense-wins-championships-49ers-stats-picks

[ghost]

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-09-05/super-bowl-2012-defense-wins-championships-49ers-stats-picks

On defense, it appears that pressuring the quarterback and creating turnovers are more important than total points allowed. The past nine champs had the most statistical success in sacks, total takeaways and interceptions.