Super Bowl Trophy name change

[ObsiWan]

Another guy that's been frustrated with the Patriots for years. ^^^

You're always around these threads jabbing at them, and despite all of those things you've stated they've remained the team to beat so your track record hasn't been anything close to accurate about the Pats Obsi. Lets be real here.

Naaah... "frustrated" doesn't describe me.
For the record, I actually appreciate Belichick's smarts. He makes whodats into stars because his system works well and he knows exactly what skill set makes his system work. And he makes sure his GM/head of football operations goes and gets those types of guys (something O'Brien hasn't shown he learned).

He knows how to take away an opponent's strengths and basically make you try and beat him with your "other guys". He's the best HC since Shula and Walsh.

Now Brady.... he is very good but there are QBs I hold in higher esteem. Brady's only played in one system. Brees has excelled in two. So did Peyton. So did Montana. I hold them higher than Brady because they've excelled in more than one place. As I'm one to go old school, I hold Johnny U. and Otto Graham higher on my all-time list. Johnny called all the plays and basically invented the two-minute drill. Otto Graham led his team to the league championship every year he played as a professional.
Now I'll bet you that one will EVER do that again.

 

[Double Barrel]

lol! Otto Graham??! It's a different sport today. And let's be honest: NFL in the 1940's and 1950's was a watered down product without full integration of black athletes.

I'll give you Johnny U, even though it was a much, much simpler game back then. That said, there is no reason to believe that Unitas could not play today if he had grown up playing modern football.

As far as Brady and one system, that does not account for the myriad of styles that offense has gone through with various personnel changes. Playing down what Brady has accomplished is either agenda driven or just non-objective hatred. He's still the one to play the game, not coaches, not systems, but be there week in and week out making plays. I listen to those that played for and against him, and they're the ones calling him G.O.A.T. Apologies if random internet guy's opinion does not hold the same weight.

And Peyton Manning might have had different coaches, but he brought with him the same offensive scheme. Kubiak had to adapt to Manning, not the other way around. That's one of the reasons he was never considered in Houston when Kubiak was HC. Elway forced the issue and Manning was already QB when Kubiak took the Denver gig. That said, I take nothing away from Manning's greatness. Easily top 5 of all time in my own random internet guy's book.

When did Montana play in two systems? He was always a WCO guy, even in Kansas City. And dude was surrounded by HoFers for all four of his Super Bowls. Three with greatest WR of all time.

 

[infantrycak]

lKubiak had to adapt to Manning, not the other way around. That's one of the reasons he was never considered in Houston when Kubiak was HC. Elway forced the issue and Manning was already QB when Kubiak took the Denver gig.

That's not quite true. They adapted to each other. They did convert from E-P under Fox to WCO under Kubiak. But Kubiak was very conscious of who he was working with in the implementation. Good job of the two working together...and with Kubiak making Manning understand he was no longer a 4500 yd QB.

 

[dream_team]

lol! Otto Graham??! It's a different sport today. And let's be honest: NFL in the 1940's and 1950's was a watered down product without full integration of black athletes.

I'll give you Johnny U, even though it was a much, much simpler game back then. That said, there is no reason to believe that Unitas could not play today if he had grown up playing modern football.

Why do you think football is tougher today? In regards to QB’ing, a defense can no longer “touch” a QB or receivers. I remember, there was a time when rookie QBs struggled their first season and it was often suggested they sit & learn that first season. Today, rookies are productive right from game one. QBs are breaking passing records left & right.

Has the QB talent gotten better? Or maybe the game has gotten easier for QBs.

 

[infantrycak]

Why do you think football is tougher today?

The average athleticism is way higher. The complexity of the schemes on both sides is light years ahead.

 

[Texecutioner]

Now Brady.... he is very good but there are QBs I hold in higher esteem. Brady's only played in one system. Brees has excelled in two. So did Peyton. So did Montana. I hold them higher than Brady because they've excelled in more than one place. As I'm one to go old school, I hold Johnny U. and Otto Graham higher on my all-time list. Johnny called all the plays and basically invented the two-minute drill. Otto Graham led his team to the league championship every year he played as a professional.
Now I'll bet you that one will EVER do that again.

You just aren't informed at this point. None of them are even close in any way shape or form based on accomplishments and what Brady's done with the revolving door of receivers. Brady could win 5 more SB's, and you'd write this very same paragraph.

 

[Texecutioner]

Why do you think football is tougher today? In regards to QB’ing, a defense can no longer “touch” a QB or receivers. I remember, there was a time when rookie QBs struggled their first season and it was often suggested they sit & learn that first season. Today, rookies are productive right from game one. QBs are breaking passing records left & right.

Has the QB talent gotten better? Or maybe the game has gotten easier for QBs.

You're actually dead wrong as far as QB's having it easier. There are more QB's struggling around the NFL now than ever before. This idea that they made the rules so much easier has been a myth. Sure you can bring up a few young QB's having huge seasons even as rookies, but so many of them have crashed the next season or been unimpressive. Finding a franchise QB today is harder than it's ever been.

 

[Texecutioner]

When did Montana play in two systems? He was always a WCO guy, even in Kansas City. And dude was surrounded by HoFers for all four of his Super Bowls. Three with greatest WR of all time.

I grew up as a Montana fan, but honestly anyone at this point attempting to put him up there with Brady is just a Pats hater and you can write them off and stop paying attention. Brady has smoked him in literally every meaningful statistic in the regular season and especially the post season. Anyone who actually looked at the data and would still even mention Montana's name wouldn't be a hirable person for any types of analytics, marketing, or form of employment where data mattered. Montana had all of the advantages, but isn't even in the same stratosphere at this point. Brady doubled the amount of SB's that Montana went to. This would be about as stupid as saying that a guy who never won a SB with way worse regular season stats was better than Montana.

Those are always the same guys that somehow try to paint this picture that going to a SB and losing is worse than losing in the first round of the playoffs or not even making the playoffs. They're just mad at all of the times that their team lost to the Patriots.

 

[infantrycak]

SBs are not be all end all. Marino is one of the all time greats with none.

There are things that never show up in the stats - the prettiest ball, their air (did they look like Capt. Comeback or Capt. Poopy pants), hell just were they fun to watch.

 

[austins23]

hell just were they fun to watch.

I always thought Fouts was a bad ass QB. And he was fun to watch.

 

[JB]

I always thought Fouts was a bad ass QB. And he was fun to watch.

To me, the definitive QB will always be Staubach along with Unitas and Montana... they just knew how to win. But Brady is something special won't be seen again in my lifetime.

Hopefully Watson can continue on to be great and mentioned with those named above

 

[Mr teX]

SBs are not be all end all. Marino is one of the all time greats with none.

There are things that never show up in the stats - the prettiest ball, their air (did they look like Capt. Comeback or Capt. Poopy pants), hell just were they fun to watch.

Exactly, football's the ultimate team sport & i'll never quite understand why people attribute wins only to qbs when trying to judge them. Yes i know they're the most important position on the field, but its never really made sense to me. Russell Wilson's a great qb, but we all know where the strength of those Seahawks teams were.

I'm younger so never saw Staubach or Fouts. But I've always taken to guys closer to Fouts...Marino...Elway guys who teams success truly went how they went.

 

[Double Barrel]

Why do you think football is tougher today? In regards to QB’ing, a defense can no longer “touch” a QB or receivers. I remember, there was a time when rookie QBs struggled their first season and it was often suggested they sit & learn that first season. Today, rookies are productive right from game one. QBs are breaking passing records left & right.

Has the QB talent gotten better? Or maybe the game has gotten easier for QBs.

I didn't say "tougher". I said simpler. 'cak has already explained it.

 

[ObsiWan]

The average athleticism is way higher. The complexity of the schemes on both sides is light years ahead.

I'll give you the athleticism part ...grudgingly. Grudgingly because I think if those guys played today, they'd workout like today's players do (well, maybe not Ken Stabler )
But do you really think Tom Landry's offenses and defenses were "light years" behind what they play today?

Seems to me that today's are just variations of Sid Gillman's and later, Don Coryell's offenses from back in the day. Do you really think Gillman's AFL and Air Coryell were "light years" behind what you see out there today??

I dunno. Today's football seems akin to having your phone tell you how to get from point A to point B where in yesteryear's football you actually had to know how to read a map and have a freakin' sense of direction.


....oh man, I'm starting sound like one of them old "get off my lawn' guys aren't I?

 

[infantrycak]

I'll give you the athleticism part ...grudgingly. Grudgingly because I think if those guys played today, they'd workout like today's players do (well, maybe not Ken Stabler )
But do you really think Tom Landry's offenses and defenses were "light years" behind what they play today?

Seems to me that today's are just variations of Sid Gillman's and later, Don Coryell's offenses from back in the day. Do you really think Gillman's AFL and Air Coryell were "light years" behind what you see out there today??

I dunno. Today's football seems akin to having your phone tell you how to get from point A to point B where in yesteryear's football you actually had to know how to read a map and have a freakin' sense of direction.


....oh man, I'm starting sound like one of them old "get off my lawn' guys aren't I?

Well the subject was Otto Graham (1946-1955) & Johnny Unitas (1956-1973, with his good years prior to 1967).

Ton Landry was a player the same years as Graham.

I think Landry was one of the great complicators of the NFL. An innovator on both sides of the ball.

Seems to me complexity has progressed with leaps and pauses. Be interesting to chart the death of QBs calling their own plays.

But we've come a long way from Lombardi claiming he only had 3 running plays.

 

[Scooter]

The average athleticism is way higher. The complexity of the schemes on both sides is light years ahead.

Would the athleticism not balance out? Sure Otto and Johnny aren't having to go against LT and Watt, but they're also not protected by Matthews and Pace. For Deion and Revis, there's Rice and Megatron. The quarterback position is 3 things since the beginning of time - smart, working excessively and accurate. *unless you're Terry Bradshaw. Heck, are these guys less athletic than Peyton, Brady, Schaub, Flacco, Eli etc?

I don't have the direct football history that most of yall do, but I do lean towards the early great quarterbacks would still be great today - if not better. Dak Prescott looked to be the prototypical qb last year, and even at his best I'd rather have Staubach learning the complex scheme. 6'3" 200lbs would be criticized for his imperfect build (most other greats in the small 6'1" 200lb range), but like everyone else would be silenced with 'can he quarterback our team to winning?'.

 

[infantrycak]

Would the athleticism not balance out? Sure Otto and Johnny aren't having to go against LT and Watt, but they're also not protected by Matthews and Pace.

Let me just use this example for why it doesn't cancel out. Sure Joe Thomas, to use a contemporary, would better match up than a LT from 50 years ago. But it's rarely a stalemate game. What happens when he gets free? To get a guy who will close from that point to the QB as fast back then you'd be looking at a 240 lb guy. Or flipside a current 240 lb guy will close even faster.

WR/CB it's not their competition so much as QB processing/reaction time. The CBs can break on a ball faster from further. Windows open and close in a heartbeat. The route trees back then were ridiculously simple, almost sandlot - fly, post, slant, hitch.

Depending on the system the QB makes OL calls now.

Anyway, I was really talking about the '45-'65 era guys. And I'm sure some could play. After that, someone like Staubach I have no doubt would still excel today. Now he's smarter than the average bear too. Bradshaw had trouble reading D's in his own day. Serious doubts he'd make it today.

 

[BwhiteshoesJ]

Gotta keep it ancient. Besides, If and when they do change it. It will probably not be a coach of a original AFL team. He was with the Giants in a Lesser role