Unpopular Opinion thread

[amfootball]

He was limping down the field in between plays on that last drive. There was no way he was running. That's why they tried the Sam Wyche trick play that everybody forgets about. Another thing everybody forgets it that Sidney Rice ran the route wrong according to Favre, in the only instance I know of that he threw a teammate under the bus so it must have been true.

Even if he was limping, there was no limp when he rolled to his right. And for a guy that is heralded as the toughest QB to play football, he does own the consecutive games streak you know and played through ridiculous injuries his whole career, I find it hard to believe that he was "too hurt" to run for a few yards to set up the game winning FG to go to the SB. And even if Rice ran the wrong route, Favre still threw across hid body while on the run to his right. A big no, no at any level of football. At the point he threw the ball if he just slid instead, it would have been a 50 yard FG but he could have probably ran for another 5-10 yards before any contact.

[BloodyChamp]

Even if he was limping, there was no limp when he rolled to his right. And for a guy that is heralded as the toughest QB to play football, he does own the consecutive games streak you know and played through ridiculous injuries his whole career, I find it hard to believe that he was "too hurt" to run for a few yards to set up the game winning FG to go to the SB. And even if Rice ran the wrong route, Favre still threw across hid body while on the run to his right. A big no, no at any level of football. At the point he threw the ball if he just slid instead, it would have been a 50 yard FG but he could have probably ran for another 5-10 yards before any contact.

You're wrong and you know it...you exemplify what I first talked about in this thread.

[amfootball]

You're wrong and you know it...you exemplify what I first talked about in this thread.

I am? What was it that you first talked about?

 

And btw, I blame Peterson more for that particular loss than Favre (I said so on this thread) as his fumbles made the game close. It should have been a blowout and never come down to that ill fated throw.

[Valpo2004]

Yet when administered a healthy dose of sodium pentothal, 9 out of 10 Indianapolis Colts fans would admit that (to this point) they would prefer to have Brady's career over Manning's. 

 

(I made that up. But I bet it's close.) 

 

His individual career or his team accomplishments.  Just saying the two are not the same.  

 

Although I don't think Brady's that overrated.  His "clutchness" is overrated, and I don't think the reality has set in for most people that Brady hasn't won a SB in more then a decade.  They still define Brady and Manning's careers by things that happened 10 years ago.  Thus Brady ended up with the clutch winner label because his team won 3 SB's and Manning ended up with the "playoff loser" label.  And it doesn't seem to matter what they do now because everything is made to fit into that window.  Brady is clutch except when he isn't.  Manning loses in the playoffs except when he doesn't.

 

But of the 5 elite QB's P. Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Luck . . . Brady easily has the worst team around him, yet they are still winning most of their games.  So he's not overrated.  His stats don't look elite but when you put a bad team around an elite QB that QB's stats can look rather average.

[GoPats]

His individual career or his team accomplishments.  Just saying the two are not the same.  

 

Although I don't think Brady's that overrated.  His "clutchness" is overrated, and I don't think the reality has set in for most people that Brady hasn't won a SB in more then a decade.  They still define Brady and Manning's careers by things that happened 10 years ago.  Thus Brady ended up with the clutch winner label because his team won 3 SB's and Manning ended up with the "playoff loser" label.  And it doesn't seem to matter what they do now because everything is made to fit into that window.  Brady is clutch except when he isn't.  Manning loses in the playoffs except when he doesn't.

 

But of the 5 elite QB's P. Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Luck . . . Brady easily has the worst team around him, yet they are still winning most of their games.  So he's not overrated.  His stats don't look elite but when you put a bad team around an elite QB that QB's stats can look rather average.

 

I heard someone else break it down that way (whose career would you rather have?) and thought that was an interesting way to frame it. There's no wrong answer of course. 

 

If I'm being honest I don't see a lot of Colts fans with an avatar pic that shows Manning holding an MVP trophy (do they even have those?) or a gold-plated copy of the NFL record book. They have pics of Manning holding his Lombardi, right? 

 

Mainly I was just responding to the dude who called Brady overrated. I think it would be awful hard to sit in a room full of NFL-educated people and make that case. 

 

But maybe that's why he posted it... that's the spirit of the thread I guess. 

[Dustin]

You want a real controversial opinion?

 

Right now, TY Hilton is better than Reggie Wayne ever was. 

[amfootball]

His individual career or his team accomplishments.  Just saying the two are not the same.  

 

Although I don't think Brady's that overrated.  His "clutchness" is overrated, and I don't think the reality has set in for most people that Brady hasn't won a SB in more then a decade.  They still define Brady and Manning's careers by things that happened 10 years ago.  Thus Brady ended up with the clutch winner label because his team won 3 SB's and Manning ended up with the "playoff loser" label.  And it doesn't seem to matter what they do now because everything is made to fit into that window.  Brady is clutch except when he isn't.  Manning loses in the playoffs except when he doesn't.

 

But of the 5 elite QB's P. Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Luck . . . Brady easily has the worst team around him, yet they are still winning most of their games.  So he's not overrated.  His stats don't look elite but when you put a bad team around an elite QB that QB's stats can look rather average.

I am not sure I follow. Are you solely defining clutchness on SB winning dives? Because over the course of their careers in the post-season, Brady has seven fourth quarter comebacks/GW drives to Manning's one. And of course 2 of Brady's comebacks came in the Super Bowl.

 

But I think the larger point that you may be missing here is that the difference between Brady and Manning is razor thin. Everyone knows that even the most ardent hater of either guy. That being said, you look for where there are differences and the most glaring is playoff record. Brady has won the most post-season games in the history of the NFL whereas Manning has the most losses and one and done's. I think if Brady never won a league MVP or did not have the season for the ages in 2007 when he set all those offensive records and went 18-0 before losing the SB than a larger point could be made perhaps in Manning's favor. As I have said before on these types of threads, Brady has the most air tight case for being not only best QB of his generation but the best QB of all time. It is ironic that people now claim he is overrated when for most of his career he was woefully underrated.

[amfootball]

You want a real controversial opinion?

 

Right now, TY Hilton is better than Reggie Wayne ever was. 

Surely you don't mean that?

[ColtStronger]

Here is a controversial topic for you!  How about the Colts pack up and leave Indy in the middle of the night like they did in Baltimore? HAHAHA just kidding, but really would you still be a fan?

[Dustin]

Surely you don't mean that?

 

Yup. 

[sweetsurrender]

His individual career or his team accomplishments.  Just saying the two are not the same.  

 

Although I don't think Brady's that overrated.  His "clutchness" is overrated, and I don't think the reality has set in for most people that Brady hasn't won a SB in more then a decade.  They still define Brady and Manning's careers by things that happened 10 years ago.  Thus Brady ended up with the clutch winner label because his team won 3 SB's and Manning ended up with the "playoff loser" label.  And it doesn't seem to matter what they do now because everything is made to fit into that window.  Brady is clutch except when he isn't.  Manning loses in the playoffs except when he doesn't.

 

But of the 5 elite QB's P. Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Luck . . . Brady easily has the worst team around him, yet they are still winning most of their games.  So he's not overrated.  His stats don't look elite but when you put a bad team around an elite QB that QB's stats can look rather average.

Don't look now but Brady has creeped up into the top 10 of most QBs categories given his performance over the last 3 games. If that Oline continues to gel and give him time, he will be right there stats-wise again with the other elites.

[sweetsurrender]

You want a real controversial opinion?

 

Right now, TY Hilton is better than Reggie Wayne ever was. 

What are you basing that on?

[Dustin]

What are you basing that on?

 

He does everything Reggie did, but faster. 

[Valpo2004]

I am not sure I follow. Are you solely defining clutchness on SB winning dives? Because over the course of their careers in the post-season, Brady has seven fourth quarter comebacks/GW drives to Manning's one. And of course 2 of Brady's comebacks came in the Super Bowl.

 

But I think the larger point that you may be missing here is that the difference between Brady and Manning is razor thin. Everyone knows that even the most ardent hater of either guy. That being said, you look for where there are differences and the most glaring is playoff record. Brady has won the most post-season games in the history of the NFL whereas Manning has the most losses and one and done's. I think if Brady never won a league MVP or did not have the season for the ages in 2007 when he set all those offensive records and went 18-0 before losing the SB than a larger point could be made perhaps in Manning's favor. As I have said before on these types of threads, Brady has the most air tight case for being not only best QB of his generation but the best QB of all time. It is ironic that people now claim he is overrated when for most of his career he was woefully underrated.

 

My point is that people are defining them by playoffs that happened 10 years ago and Superbowls that happened 10 years ago.

 

What if we look at the last 5 years though?  Doesn't seem crazy to me since a lot changes in 5 years in the NFL.  

 

Manning 4 - 4 in Playoffs.  Brady 4 - 5 in playoffs

 

Superbowl appearances Manning 2 - Brady 1 in all 3 cases they lost.

 

My point is that Brady and Manning are still carrying labels about their abilities in the playoffs from what happened over 10 years ago.  That's why I think that his whole "clutchiness" and "big game ability" is overrated, I'm not sure if such an ability really exists.  It feels to me like it's some label you get early in your career based off of a few close games or well known instances and then people manage to forget about every time you defied that label or blame that label on something else entirely.  

 

Andrew Luck managed to get a clutch label from his first couple years.  That Kansas City game really seemed to help with that.  That's nice. . . but no one noticed that he was 0 - 2 this year in game winning or tying drives.  But he still has that clutch label. . . and that label may now stick with him for life no matter what.  And every time a game is close the color commentator will talk about how good Andrew Luck is in the clutch and if Luck pulls off the win it reinforces the notion.  

 

And people get so attached to these notions that everything that happens that defies the notion gets discarded.  I mean there are people who are literally so attached to the notion that Manning is a terrible playoff/big game QB that whenever he wins a playoff game that people will claim that team he beat was terrible despite the fact that they are you know. . . in the playoffs.  I mean there are people who try to claim his SB win was a farce because the Bears team that MADE THE SUPERBOWL was a terrible team.  

 

And then there is this double standard that if a guy is accepted as a bad playoff QB, blaming the team around him is just making excuses but if a guy is accepted as a clutch QB anytime he fails to come up in the clutch his team around him is immediately blamed.

 

Anyways that's what I'm talking about with his clutchiness being overrated.  I really think that it's a label people get early in their careers and once you get that label it's extremely difficult to lose it.  I think Manning would have to win at least 3 more SB's to lose that bad playoff QB label.  

[amfootball]

My point is that people are defining them by playoffs that happened 10 years ago and Superbowls that happened 10 years ago.

 

What if we look at the last 5 years though?  Doesn't seem crazy to me since a lot changes in 5 years in the NFL.  

 

Manning 4 - 4 in Playoffs.  Brady 4 - 5 in playoffs

 

Superbowl appearances Manning 2 - Brady 1 in all 3 cases they lost.

 

My point is that Brady and Manning are still carrying labels about their abilities in the playoffs from what happened over 10 years ago.  That's why I think that his whole "clutchiness" and "big game ability" is overrated, I'm not sure if such an ability really exists.  It feels to me like it's some label you get early in your career based off of a few close games or well known instances and then people manage to forget about every time you defied that label or blame that label on something else entirely.  

 

Andrew Luck managed to get a clutch label from his first couple years.  That Kansas City game really seemed to help with that.  That's nice. . . but no one noticed that he was 0 - 2 this year in game winning or tying drives.  But he still has that clutch label. . . and that label may now stick with him for life no matter what.  And every time a game is close the color commentator will talk about how good Andrew Luck is in the clutch and if Luck pulls off the win it reinforces the notion.  

 

And people get so attached to these notions that everything that happens that defies the notion gets discarded.  I mean there are people who are literally so attached to the notion that Manning is a terrible playoff/big game QB that whenever he wins a playoff game that people will claim that team he beat was terrible despite the fact that they are you know. . . in the playoffs.  I mean there are people who try to claim his SB win was a farce because the Bears team that MADE THE SUPERBOWL was a terrible team.  

 

And then there is this double standard that if a guy is accepted as a bad playoff QB, blaming the team around him is just making excuses but if a guy is accepted as a clutch QB anytime he fails to come up in the clutch his team around him is immediately blamed.

 

Anyways that's what I'm talking about with his clutchiness being overrated.  I really think that it's a label people get early in their careers and once you get that label it's extremely difficult to lose it.  I think Manning would have to win at least 3 more SB's to lose that bad playoff QB label.  

I get what you are saying. I do think labels get forged early on but Manning took six years to win his first playoff game whereas Brady won his first 10. That is a hard thing to shake or overlook or not let color how they are perceived.

 

Here is a stat for you though. Since their last SB win, Brady is 8-8 in the post season with two SB appearances (including a 18-0 season until the SB) and five AFCCG appearances and 2 one and done's (the only 2 of his career). Manning is 4-6 since his last SB win with two SB appearances and two AFCCG appearances and 4 one and done's. So, really the big game moniker has continued but not to the drastic extent as when both players began their careers.

[sweetsurrender]

He does everything Reggie did, but faster. 

Interesting. How many looks do you think Hilton would get from Luck if an in prime Harrison was lined up opposite him?

[Dustin]

Interesting. How many looks do you think Hilton would get from Luck if an in prime Harrison was lined up opposite him?

 

Based on how many times Luck is throwing the ball this season? 

 

Probably about 140 targets. 

[sweetsurrender]

Based on how many times Luck is throwing the ball this season? 

 

Probably about 140 targets. 

You said early on though so that means the last few years, right? 

[amfootball]

He does everything Reggie did, but faster. 

I think Reggie is stronger and tougher though.

[Dustin]

You said early on though so that means the last few years, right? 

 

Hilton is better right now. So if we're trying to determine how good he would be right now across from prime Harrison, then I'll use the pass numbers from this year. 

 

Hilton would see about 140 targets. 

[Dustin]

I think Reggie is stronger and tougher though.

 

I'm not sure how you could quantify either of those things. 

[sweetsurrender]

Hilton is better right now. So if we're trying to determine how good he would be right now across from prime Harrison, then I'll use the pass numbers from this year. 

 

Hilton would see about 140 targets. 

How many for Harrison then?

[amfootball]

I'm not sure how you could quantify either of those things. 

You can't by stats only by watching them play.

[Dustin]

You can't by stats only by watching them play.

 

And i've watched them play way more than you have. And i'm not sure how you could say one way or the other. And if there was a difference, it's not a noticeable one.

[Dustin]

How many for Harrison then?

 

150-160. 

[amfootball]

And i've watched them play way more than you have. And i'm not sure how you could say one way or the other. And if there was a difference, it's not a noticeable one.

I have watched Reggie his whole career. He is one of my favorite receivers of all time. No weakness to his game IMO. He never got taken out of game the way Harrison did by Ty Law in 2003 playoffs. I like Hilton a lot but I think it is a leap to say he is better right now. Wayne had a career year Andrew's rookie season which helped propel the team to the post-season.

[sweetsurrender]

150-160. 

So basically no other targets for anyone else?

[SilentHill]

Here's my unpopular opinion, Luck isn't just the best QB out of the 2012 Draft Class, he is the best QB in the NFL right now, and won't give up that title for over a decade.

[Dustin]

So basically no other targets for anyone else?

 

That would make sense if Luck wasn't on pace for 700 pass attempts this year. 

[50ShadesofBlu]

Here's my unpopular opinion, Luck isn't just the best QB out of the 2012 Draft Class, he is the best QB in the NFL right now, and won't give up that title for over a decade.

That may not be an unpopular opinion, in fact, in some areas it is probably very popular indeed. Now, if one wanted to start a thread for incorrect opinions, this would be a great one to start it with. I agree, if he doesn't get injured, that in ten years he will be the best. But he won't be for at least the next four or five years and probably longer than that.

[SilentHill]

That may not be an unpopular opinion, in fact, in some areas it is probably very popular indeed. Now, if one wanted to start a thread for incorrect opinions, this would be a great one to start it with. I agree, if he doesn't get injured, that in ten years he will be the best. But he won't be for at least the next four or five years and probably longer than that.

 

Thank's for your (wrong) opinion. ;)

[50ShadesofBlu]

Thank's for your (wrong) opinion. ;)

No problem. Such is the nature of opinions is it not? 

[BloodyChamp]

The refs made the game close.

[peytonmanning18]

Yet when administered a healthy dose of sodium pentothal, 9 out of 10 Indianapolis Colts fans would admit that (to this point) they would prefer to have Brady's career over Manning's. 

 

(I made that up. But I bet it's close.) 

 

no, because if Manning had played for New England all those years he would have at least 7 rings.

[BOTT]

The Green Bay Packers have ugly uniforms

[Superman]

You want a real controversial opinion?

 

Right now, TY Hilton is better than Reggie Wayne ever was. 

 

"Right now" is a short time. "Ever was" is a long time.

 

Not a lot of players have done what Hilton has done so far this season, and this soon in their careers. He has the makings of greatness about him. But Reggie produced at a high level for a long time, which is really what made him great, not a short term burst or even a really good season here or there. It's that he was so good for so long.

[Dustin]

But Reggie produced at a high level for a long time, which is really what made him great, not a short term burst or even a really good season here or there. It's that he was so good for so long.

 

Obviously, I never claimed that TY had a better career than Reggie. 

 

A matter of fact, I have no idea what point you were even trying to get across with your whole post. Besides telling me things I already know.  

[Superman]

Obviously, I never claimed that TY had a better career than Reggie. 

 

A matter of fact, I have no idea what point you were even trying to get across with your whole post. Besides telling me things I already know.  

 

Not sure how you can miss the point. Unless you think it makes sense to compare one player's peak performance over a short period of time with another player's peak performance over a short period of time. That's what "Player A is better right now than Player B ever was" is doing.

 

It's not fair to either player. Hilton has a long way to go before he can start to be looked at in the same light as Reggie, in terms of overall production and consistency. And Reggie never quite reached the dynamic heights that Hilton has in his last 10 games. Maybe comparing Reggie's peak performance over a short period of time to Hilton's peak performance over a short period of time is more what you're looking at. That's still dismissive of consistency and overall production, which I assume would be included when talking about how good a 13 year vet "ever was."

 

If we're comparing their traits, then I'd say Reggie was a superior route runner and had better body control. Hilton is obviously faster and more explosive. The rest, probably a wash, so far.

[Dustin]

Not sure how you can miss the point. Unless you think it makes sense to compare one player's peak performance over a short period of time with another player's peak performance over a short period of time.

 

It makes sense fine. Right now Hilton is playing better than Reggie has at any point in his career (im sure there's some point where Reggie produced more during a 7 game streak tho). I don't get what's not fair about that. If anything, it's not fair to Hilton considering that Reggie has more than a decade of games played over him.

 

 

Maybe comparing Reggie's peak performance over a short period of time to Hilton's peak performance over a short period of time is more what you're looking at. 

 

That's what I meant. I don't know how anybody could take it any other way.

 

That's still dismissive of consistency and overall production

 

I don't see how. Hilton is far from "inconsistent" at this point. 

[JerodMayo51]

no, because if Manning had played for New England all those years he would have at least 7 rings.

 

lol

 

If Brady had the Colts weapons on offense he would have won 10 rings.