2013 NFL Super Bowl Prediction Challenge

[Paelos]

You can spot the biases when we get into this stuff pretty easily.

I'll fully admit I'm biased against the mobile QB. I haven't seen that they can carry a team to success for anything more than brief periods. I wouldn't want to build around them, and I sure as hell wouldn't pay them huge contracts.

[Chimpy]

Anyone who says Dan Marino was not a top QB is insane.

No one has ever had the ability to throw the touch pass as well as Marino.

[Ingmar]

But he never won a Super Bowl so clearly he was terrible. If he really cared he'd have been out there on defense.

[01101010]

Wait... Danny Wuerffel? 

[Chimpy]

Wait... Danny Wuerffel? 

Look who made that comment. Then do like most of us do and send it to the "this dude is crazy" bin. 

[ghost]

Nearly every living NFL QB (retired and active) would place Peyton in the top 10 QB's to ever play the game.  How on Earth can you think that he's overrated?  Have you not watched the way that he runs an offense in real time on the field?  How many QB's even have the football IQ to do that in the modern era?

Stating that a player is overrated and the concept that they are still pretty damned good are not mutually exclusive.  Manning is obviously a very, very good quarterback.  I don't think I would put him as "best of all time" or even in the top 5, but then he has 5 MVPs.  Favre is also a very, very good quarterback, but he's overrated too.  He has 3 MVPs.  I'd still take either of them on my team when they were in their prime.

[Ingmar]

[Phildo]

Dan Marino was a great passer, but he can't hold a kick for shit.

[Fordel]

Dan Marino was to passing what Barry Sanders was to running.

[Rasix]

That Sanders guy was fucking terrible. Didn't win shit.

Manning has been hurt by time.  The neck injuries have taken a toll on his arm strength, which was never Favre-like to begin with.   I think teams built somewhat wrongheadedly around Manning.  They keep foisting offensive weapons upon him that he really doesn't need.  Like Brady, he could turn just about anyone into a 1,000 yard receiver.  Get him on a team with a stout defense and I think he has a better playoff record.

[Yegolev]

Dan Marino was a great passer, but he can't hold a kick for shit.

[Nebu]

That Sander's guy was fucking terrible. Didn't win shit.

That made me laugh out loud.  Thanks for that.

[Paelos]

Manning has been hurt by time.  The neck injuries have taken a toll on his arm strength, which was never Favre-like to begin with.   I think teams built somewhat wrongheadedly around Manning.  They keep foisting offensive weapons upon him that he really doesn't need.  Like Brady, he could turn just about anyone into a 1,000 yard receiver.  Get him on a team with a stout defense and I think he has a better playoff record.

I totally agree, and this is the problem with many GMs in the NFL right now. They believe too much in "weapons" and not enough in defense. The Falcons biggest problem right now is just that, they can't try to win the 4th quarter every game while the defense shits the bed.

[naum]

That Sanders guy was fucking terrible. Didn't win shit.

Now you just climbed into the silly clown car.

Even the greatest of running backs (i.e., Simpson in his prime, Payton, Sanders) can sparkle at unprecedented level, but at best, can only lift a team to slightly above mediocre by their efforts alone. Not like QB who consistently win games and elevate their team into champions.

No, Marino, didn't play defense. But his playoff record is mediocre (go look it up). And I was a big fan of Dan Marino -- he grew up not far from me (2-3 miles) and I believe I played street hockey against him as a kid in Oakland (he went to Central Catholic before heading to Pitt) PA. Yet every big game he fell short.

It is subjective, but QB can indeed be measured by W-L, especially playoff time, when all the teams are more closely matched.

Sorry, but Roethlisberger > Manning. More SB. Done more with a lesser supporting cast. The Steeler teams helmed by O'Donnel and Stewart featured better D, offensive line and running backs (Bettis was at tail end of career and hobbled by time Roethlisberger cycled into his prime) yet they fell short in AFC championships (though the officials gave it to Denver with phantom PI calls back in 97) and SB. Manning's stats look better because he played most of his games in the pristine conditions of a dome whereas Roethlisberger plays 11-12 games a season in AFC North outdoor stadiums.

[Paelos]

It is subjective, but QB can indeed be measured by W-L, especially playoff time, when all the teams are more closely matched.

That's honestly almost as crazy as measuring pitchers by W-L. Football is even more of a team sport and you want to hang the game on the QB? Have you been watching Skip Bayless or something?

[Sjofn]

That Sanders guy was fucking terrible. Didn't win shit.

 

[naum]

It is subjective, but QB can indeed be measured by W-L, especially playoff time, when all the teams are more closely matched.

That's honestly almost as crazy as measuring pitchers by W-L. Football is even more of a team sport and you want to hang the game on the QB? Have you been watching Skip Bayless or something?

But the "greatness" of a pitcher is indeed measured by wins -- at least over the course of a career and 300 wins still holds luster for HoF voters.

But again, you're comparing apples to hammers as the best teams in baseball win slightly over 60% of games whereas football and it's limited schedule a great team easily wins 75%-90%+ and a QB is the most essential (even more so today than yesteryear given the emphasis on passing game and consistent repeated clampdown on defensive measures through recent decades).

Look at past SB winners -- since Dilfer & TB QB in 2002, SB victor has been led by elite QB. Wilson might not be level of Brady, Roethlisberger, Flacco, etc. (yet) but he's very good and along with Manning in the upper QB echelon. I just think Manning is in the same class with Wilson, below Brady, Roethlisberger, etc.. Yeah, if you go by stats alone, you can certainly make a case for Manning being the greatest, but football isn't like baseball -- it's a team sport, and winning is what matters. Even more pronounced for QB position -- while amassing a lot of yards and high YPA is indicative of a great runner, completing a lot of passes for a lot of yardage isn't necessarily emblematic of a great passer. Throw for 400 yards but fail to move the chains on a critical down or make the big play and the more efficient QB might be the one who maybe threw for 200 but made the big plays when the game was at a critical juncture.

Manning has mostly done that but I think there's a small class above that's done it on a more consistent basis in the big games.  Yeah I'm countervailing against announcer worship and stat fetishdom.

[Chimpy]

You just put Flacco in the elite camp too?

[Abagadro]

Roethlisberger doesn't belong in the same conversation as Manning. You are high.

[Paelos]

Naum, you're buying into the bullshit ESPN version of football. It's not all about QB. It's an important position, but it's absolutely pointless without a decent offensive line, a semblance of a running game, a decent receiving core, and a defense.

[Nevermore]

Even by your own insane standards Flacco could at best only be the equal (lol) of Manning because they've both won one championship.

[naum]

Naum, you're buying into the bullshit ESPN version of football. It's not all about QB. It's an important position, but it's absolutely pointless without a decent offensive line, a semblance of a running game, a decent receiving core, and a defense.

Without a great or very good/on the cusp QB, you're not winning a Superbowl. Maybe in 1974, but not 2014. Again, SCOREBOARD -- peruse the last decade of Superbowl winners and the importance of QB position is apparent.

Yes, offensive line, defense, running game are important but I point again to Steelers & Roethlisberger -- pre-Roethlisberger, Steelers were superior in every one of these facets, yet they fell short, in championship games and the first SB Cowher/O'Donnel (1995 v. Cowboys). Roethlisberger, with a shabby O-line, a decent D but nowhere near previous years, and a diminished running game and Steelers win 2 of 3 Super Bowls. This season, Steelers on cusp of  playoffs, despite having almost NO running game, an atrocious defense especially against the pass, and a decrepit offensive line -- all due to Roethlisberger mostly -- plug Matt Cassel as starting QB and they're 4-12 or worse.

[Nebu]

How many super bowl winners in the last decade had a top 10 defense? 

[Nevermore]

Roethlisberger, with a shabby O-line, a decent D but nowhere near previous years, and a diminished running game and Steelers win 2 of 3 Super Bowls.

What defenses nowhere near previous years and a diminished running game might look like:

[Cyrrex]

Manning is an elite QB with two glaring weaknesses.  One, he is prone to crack in big games when things are not going his way.  In general, big games just seem to have a way of getting to him.

Two, and this isn't entirely his own fault, he is given too much power on the field because of his admittedly super high football IQ.  As a result, when he begins to crack, his whole team is utterly doomed because the only adjustments you can make have to go through him.  For all intents and purposes, he calls all the offensive plays.

I still think he is one of the best all time, it's just that the flaws that he does have are killer ones, if you can find a way to expose them.

[Sjofn]

Naum, you're buying into the bullshit ESPN version of football. It's not all about QB. It's an important position, but it's absolutely pointless without a decent offensive line, a semblance of a running game, a decent receiving core, and a defense.

Without a great or very good/on the cusp QB, you're not winning a Superbowl. Maybe in 1974, but not 2014. Again, SCOREBOARD -- peruse the last decade of Superbowl winners and the importance of QB position is apparent.

Eli is my QB and I am weirdly fond of him these days because he is just so gosh durn Eli, but I am pretty sure he was not what won that first Superbowl against the Patriots, even though he got the MVP.

[Nevermore]

How many super bowl winners in the last decade had a top 10 defense?  

Going by scoring defense all the way back to 2000:

2013: Seahawks - 231pts (1st)
2012: Ravens - 344pts (12th)
2011: Giants - 400pts (25th)
2010: Packers - 240pts (2nd)
2009: Saints - 341pts (20th)
2008: Roethlisbergers - 223pts (1st)
2007: Giants - 351pts (17th)
2006: Colts - 360pts (23rd)
2005: Roethlisbergers - 258pts (3rd)
2004: Patriots - 260pts (2nd)
2003: Patriots - 238pts (1st)
2002: Buccaneers - 196pts (1st)
2001: Patriots - 272pts (6th)
2000: Ravens - 165pts (1st)

So the overrated Manning and Brees had to win their rings without a lot of help from their defense, while elite Roethlisberger was carried by his defense.  As an aside, also note that Brady hasn't been able to win a championship without a dominating defense backing him up.

Edit: Here, I'll color code the defenses in the top 10.

[Sjofn]

I want to say the 2011 Giants, a lot of their good defenders were hurt at various points in that season, and only all got healthy right at the end, too. But I could be high.

[Cyrrex]

Naum, you're buying into the bullshit ESPN version of football. It's not all about QB. It's an important position, but it's absolutely pointless without a decent offensive line, a semblance of a running game, a decent receiving core, and a defense.

Without a great or very good/on the cusp QB, you're not winning a Superbowl. Maybe in 1974, but not 2014. Again, SCOREBOARD -- peruse the last decade of Superbowl winners and the importance of QB position is apparent.

Eli is my QB and I am weirdly fond of him these days because he is just so gosh durn Eli, but I am pretty sure he was not what won that first Superbowl against the Patriots, even though he got the MVP.

I actually think that, for at least a handful of plays, he played out of his mind and WAS the reason they won.  He was the anti-Peyton.  I'm not really a Giants fan by any stretch, but I remember watching that game and getting a strange feeling of pride for what he did.  You should be fond of Eli.  He'll never be considered good as Peyton, but I'd almost rather have him as my SB QB.

Edit for spelling.

[Chimpy]

Just to add to the "Naum is high" details nevermore posted, Pittsburgh was the #1 scoring defense the year they lost to Green Bay.
 

EDIT:
Whoops, didn't see the previous spoiler tagged info.

[Rasix]

That win over the Seahawks was all him.  Elite level shit.  



At least he hasn't raped anyone or crashed a motorcycle lately.   

[Cyrrex]

To be fair, there is no way for you to know that he hasn't raped someone lately.

[Sjofn]

Naum, you're buying into the bullshit ESPN version of football. It's not all about QB. It's an important position, but it's absolutely pointless without a decent offensive line, a semblance of a running game, a decent receiving core, and a defense.

Without a great or very good/on the cusp QB, you're not winning a Superbowl. Maybe in 1974, but not 2014. Again, SCOREBOARD -- peruse the last decade of Superbowl winners and the importance of QB position is apparent.

Eli is my QB and I am weirdly fond of him these days because he is just so gosh durn Eli, but I am pretty sure he was not what won that first Superbowl against the Patriots, even though he got the MVP.

I actually think that, for at least a handful of plays, he played out of his mind and WAS the reason they won.  He was the anti-Peyton.  I'm not really a Giants fan by any stretch, but I remember watching that game and getting a strange feeling of pride for what he did.  You should be fond of Eli.  He'll never be considered good as Peyton, but I'd almost rather have him as my SB QB.

Edit for spelling.

The entire team played out of their mind that night, though. It was crazy awesome. 

The second one I'm more willing to give Eli, simply because he had an awesome year and they wouldn't have made the playoffs without him, imo.

[Malakili]

Without a great or very good/on the cusp QB, you're not winning a Superbowl. Maybe in 1974, but not 2014. Again, SCOREBOARD -- peruse the last decade of Superbowl winners and the importance of QB position is apparent.

The problem is this is kind of circular, isn't it?  Why are they great, because they've won Super Bowls?  Why did they win Super Bowls?  Because they're great!

[Nebu]

How many super bowl winners in the last decade had a top 10 defense?  

So the overrated Manning and Brees had to win their rings without a lot of help from their defense, while elite Roethlisberger was carried by his defense.  

That was precisely my point.  Though I do like the colors better.