BillD1984 said:I agree it's not even close, BUT I now believe you need more than just a "servicable" RB to win the Super Bowl.
Just look at the Patriots (and I admittedly say this in hindsight). They won three SB's in four years with one of the greatest QB's in the history of the game. Since then: several near championships ('06, '07, '10 and '11) with the same HOF QB , but they weren't able to close the deal in any of those years. I now believe the difference was not having a "Mariano Rivera" RB to close out games. If they had Antowain Smith or (even better) clock killin' Corey Dillon in any of those years, IMO they win AT LEAST two more Super Bowls.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you need an Earl Campbell when you have a Tom Brady, but I do think you need to do better than BenJarvus Green-Ellis as your FEATURE back to close out games.
I agree it's not even close, BUT I now believe you need more than just a "servicable" RB to win the Super Bowl.
Just look at the Patriots (and I admittedly say this in hindsight). They won three SB's in four years with one of the greatest QB's in the history of the game. Since then: several near championships ('06, '07, '10 and '11) with the same HOF QB , but they weren't able to close the deal in any of those years. I now believe the difference was not having a "Mariano Rivera" RB to close out games. If they had Antowain Smith or (even better) clock killin' Corey Dillon in any of those years, IMO they win AT LEAST two more Super Bowls.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you need an Earl Campbell when you have a Tom Brady, but I do think you need to do better than BenJarvus Green-Ellis as your FEATURE back to close out games.
And your sample size is ONE TEAM in how many years of Super Bowls?
So your ONE team means A RARE case..NOT THE NORM as your excitement is indicating.
If you ask ANY coach if a running game is needed to be successful...99.99% will say yes.
BillD1984 said:I agree it's not even close, BUT I now believe you need more than just a "servicable" RB to win the Super Bowl.
Just look at the Patriots (and I admittedly say this in hindsight). They won three SB's in four years with one of the greatest QB's in the history of the game. Since then: several near championships ('06, '07, '10 and '11) with the same HOF QB , but they weren't able to close the deal in any of those years. I now believe the difference was not having a "Mariano Rivera" RB to close out games. If they had Antowain Smith or (even better) clock killin' Corey Dillon in any of those years, IMO they win AT LEAST two more Super Bowls.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you need an Earl Campbell when you have a Tom Brady, but I do think you need to do better than BenJarvus Green-Ellis as your FEATURE back to close out games.
bill, even though the pats defense did step it up in the playoffs, if they have even a better defense they win that game.
I agree Rey, but one or two more first downs and Eli never gets a chance to beat that defense.
rey_1178 said:but you're considering the whole body of work. we're talking about today's NFL.
And your sample size is ONE TEAM in how many years of Super Bowls?
So your ONE team means A RARE case..NOT THE NORM as your excitement is indicating.
If you ask ANY coach if a running game is needed to be successful...99.99% will say yes.
My original comments were based on someone who said that if he had the #1 pick, he'd pick a potentially elite RB (Trent Richardson) over a potentially elite QB (Andrew Luck).
Where do you stand? You are dancing, but not answering directly. By the sounds of it, you seem to be on the side of the Running Back. If I am wrong, just say so.
Never dance because the ONLY TIME...AGAIN...THE ONLY TIME I mentioned the word ELITE was talking about Edggerin James.... PERIOD.
THAT question of picking an elite ANYTHING was ever posed to me. I would take the QB...UNLESS, in the case of the Rams, I have one already.
NO dancing...just the USUAL reading comprehension and later knee jerk reaction from you... IF you had read my quotes... no spinoff thread would have needed to be opened.
Quit overreacting. The "spinoff" thread wasn't created because of you. It was created because a separate topic was born in the Peyton Manning thread that I though deserved it's own thread.
Quit overreacting. The "spinoff" thread wasn't created because of you. It was created because a separate topic was born in the Peyton Manning thread that I though deserved it's own thread.
To recap:
The Peyton Manning thread has spun off-topic when someone suggested that an NFL team "has to have a running back" to be successful when actually giving a take that the Colts should draft Trent Richardson instead of Andrew Luck.
To which I vehemently disagreed and provided examples on why an NFL team no longer needs an elite running back and that the potential for an elite QB is of much more value to a team's success.
To which Salsa (how predictable) disagreed.
What are your thoughts???
rey_1178 said:bill, even though the pats defense did step it up in the playoffs, if they have even a better defense they win that game.
If Welker makes THAT catch it's game over.
Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?