21isSuperman

If I recall correctly, there was a time period where he was the only safety between him, Reed, and Polamalu to have a DPOY and Super Bowl championship on his resume. Bob Sanders: Super Bowl in 2006, DPOY in 2007 Ed Reed: DPOY in 2004, Super Bowl in 2011 Troy Polamalu: 1st Super Bowl in 2004, DPOY in 2010 So from 2007 to 2010, Sanders was the only safety of the three to have a DPOY and Super Bowl ring. He was also the last one drafted of the three. He played more than 6 games twice in his career and was first team All-Pro both times. When healthy, no one could match what he brought to a defense. This is a very arbitrary stat, but if you take the best individual titles they could have won (DPOY titles + first team All-Pro selections) and divide it by number of games played, the stats are: Reed: (5+1)/174 = 0.034 Polamalu: (4+1)/158 = 0.032 Sanders: (2+1)/50 = 0.06

I'd put him as the best safety in the league when fully healthy. If he could have enjoyed an injury-free career, we'd be talking about one of the greatest defensive players ever and a surefire Hall of Famer

Not necessarily. A good GM should park his ego and let the coach play whoever is best. For example, the Seahawks gave Matt Flynn a 3 year, $26 mil deal with $10 mil guaranteed, only to have him be the backup because rookie Russell Wilson was a better option. The coach and GM parked their egos and let the best players play, regardless of contract. Say what you want about Shipley. He wasn't an All-Pro, but he was certainly better than Satele. I disagree that it was an excuse to validate the hate. I think it was another reason to hate Grigs

I don't understand people telling him to not play for that franchise. The very reason why the Bengals are picking at #1 is because they're bad and the very reason why the draft is set up the way it is, is so the worst teams get the top picks is to help restore that balance. If every #1 pick "pulled an Eli", the balance of power will never change. When Peyton went to the Colts, they were horrible (coming off a 3-13 season). Eventually, they become one of the league's more successful franchises, won a Super Bowl, and had multiple playoff appearances. In 2001, the Falcons were coming off of a 4-12 season and the Chargers off of a 1-15 season. The teams drafted Mike Vick and LT, both of whom had very good careers and both teams were much better as the years went on, including division titles for both. In 2005, the Saints were 3-13. They drafted Reggie Bush, made some other moves, and they eventually won a Super Bowl. I could keep going and provide many more examples, but I think my point is made. It makes no sense for a prospect to say he doesn't want to play for a bad franchise when the system is literally set up for the bad franchises to acquire more talent in an attempt to stop being bad. If you're a top prospect (which every player wants to be), you're almost sure to go to a bad team. That's simply how it works. This nonsense of "pulling an Eli" is very entitled and immature.

He's just giving an example in response to a question he was asked, he's not going out of his way to bring it up out of nowhere. There are extremely few situations where one can say "Grigs was right" and this is certainly not one of them

I agree. The only way I'd be a little warm to the idea would be if we also draft a QB early so Rivers can show him the ropes, like Alex Smith and Patrick Mahomes. Otherwise, I don't think bringing in a 38 year old QB for 1 season on a team with multiple holes is a good idea. Build with the future and long-term success in mind

NBA I'd say LeBron. I'm heavily in the Manning group for NFL, though there should be a distinction between greatest of all time and greatest QB of all time. For example, is Manning a better QB than Jerry Rice was a WR? Hockey is difficult because the game has changed so much. In today's game, Gretz wouldn't come anywhere near as many points as he currently has. If you watch highlights from the 80s and 90s, the goalies were absolutely horrible. Gretz eclipsed 150 points in a season multiple times, and even hit the 200+ point mark multiple times, which is absolutely unheard of anymore. That's like a RB rushing for 3000 yards He had Jimmy Graham at TE for several years, Reggie Bush in the backfield, Devery Henderson. He also consistently has Pro Bowl level players on his OL.

Done more with less for Brees? For the last 10+ years, he's played in a dome and had a great offensively-minded head coach and has had a pretty good OL in front of him. On the other hand, Peyton had to deal with a poor OL for a lot of his career and head coaches that I think are overrated

Shouldn't even be the head coach anymore after that horrid playoff display against the Chiefs, but as a Colts fan, this works for me.

You can't even compare the two. The stud DL the 49ers have had significant contributions from picks taken before Lynch and Shanahan even got there. Armstead and Buckner were both drafted before the Lynch/Shanahan era, whereas Ballard inherited a roster made by a guy who drafted/traded for players like Trent Richardson and Bjorn Werner. Not only that, but the 49ers lost their starting QB last year and went 4-12 whereas the Colts lost their starting QB and went 7-9. The major difference is that the 49ers got their expected starter back whereas the Colts are now searching for a franchise QB. I understand the frustration, but the situations are totally different. While no GM is perfect, Ballard has made some very good decisions and certainly deserves patience to continue building the roster as he and Reich want.

Why? At the time of his signing, the Colts were considered a threat in the AFC with Super Bowl aspirations and an MVP candidate at QB.

That goes double for Lamar Jackson. I like Lamar, but everyone is talking about how amazing he is and how he's changing the game with his running, but they're ignoring all the hits he takes. If Lamar doesn't change his style and continues running the way he does, I think his career will be very short. Mahomes seems to run more out of necessity whereas Jackson runs as a primary weapon.

If I recall correctly, Super Bowls where the top offense and top defense play each other are extremely skewed in favour of the defense. Two very recent examples would be the Manning Broncos being beaten by the Seahawks, and the Falcons losing to New England. I want to see KC win it, but I think San Fran wins. KC's OL hasn't done anything to impress me and KC's best running threat is Mahomes. That's not a formula for success against a team with an elite defense and such a stout DL in San Fran. Andy Reid is very smart and will come up with some good schemes to help, but I expect to see Mahomes running for his life on nearly every dropback. I also feel bad for Justin Houston, leaving KC for a team he thought would be a Super Bowl contender, only to have the QB of that team retire and watch his former team make the Super Bowl. Maybe they give him an honourary ring if they win.

I don't think Luck's retirement is what caused it. That's been the trend for several years now. Patrick Willis and Anthony Davis both retired from San Fran when they were quite young. Chris Borland followed that up by retiring early as well.

At what point does the media start treating Brees and the Saints like they did Peyton and the Colts? Prolific offenses, great regular season success, 1 Super Bowl to show for it.