Divisional Round: Steelers at Chiefs Game Thread

[oldunclemark]

Just now, Luck is Good said:

Maybe but I just can't see anyone winning at NE so I don't think it really matters

without Rob Gronkowski....NE isn't the offensive force they were..

.....not that Pitt was an offensive machine tonight

[Luck is Good]

Just now, oldunclemark said:

without Rob Gronkowski....NE isn't the offensive force they were..

.....not that Pitt was an offensive machine tonight

The Patriots still find a way though. Good teams find ways to win. They always find a way

[Jules]

1 minute ago, oldunclemark said:

without Rob Gronkowski....NE isn't the offensive force they were..

.....not that Pitt was an offensive machine tonight

 

In these cold out door night games it's tougher for these teams to look pretty on offense. But, indoors in the SB is where I think NE would have more issues without Gronk against Packers/Falcons.

 

The AFC games have been slug feasts lately to some extent. I think Steelers/Pats will be too but I have to favor NE at home since it's just too damn tough to win there.

[Coltsman1788]

Pats vs Steelers in the AFCC. All that means to me is that I will be pulling for the NFC in the Super Bowl this year. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Go Falcons!

Go Steelers!

Go Pack!  I actually wouldn't mind the Falcons winning but I cant see them beating the Steelers or Pats in a SB.

[Luck is Good]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Go Pack!  I actually wouldn't mind the Falcons winning but I cant see them beating the Steelers or Pats in a SB.

Agreed. Falcons wouldn't beat either one of the Steelers or Patriots. Packers could just because of the most physically gifted QB I've ever seen

[chad72]

9 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

In these cold out door night games it's tougher for these teams to look pretty on offense. But, indoors in the SB is where I think NE would have more issues without Gronk against Packers/Falcons.

 

The AFC games have been slug feasts lately to some extent. I think Steelers/Pats will be too but I have to favor NE at home since it's just too damn tough to win there.

 

When Belichick has played a team twice in the same season in the AFCCG (beat Chargers easily in regular season but had to slug it out in AFCCG in 2007, beat Ravens barely in 2011 regular season and AFCCG, lost to Ravens barely in 2012 regular season and then handily in AFCCG, Broncos twice in 2013 and 2015) it's been close recently except when it's the Luck era Colts. I'm 100% certain the Patriots fans are happy Peyton is retired.

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Pats vs Steelers in the AFCC. All that means to me is that I will be pulling for the NFC in the Super Bowl this year. 

Me too, Pack can do it, they have Rodgers.

[Luck is Good]

Listen I'll eat my words if Pittsburgh wins at NE. I wouldn't mind it. But I just find it hard to believe they win at Gillette Stadium

[Luck is Good]

Rodgers all the way baby! Go prove ur the best

[NFLfan]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Go Pack!  I actually wouldn't mind the Falcons winning but I cant see them beating the Steelers or Pats in a SB.

 

I cannot root for the Packers or Patriots. That would be the worst Super Bowl for me. I don't like the Cowboys either.

 

I am rooting for the Falcons. 

[NFLfan]

3 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

Rodgers all the way baby! Go prove ur the best

 

Better than Peyton???

[chad72]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I cannot root for the Packers or Patriots. That would be the worst Super Bowl for me. I don't like the Cowboys either.

 

I am rooting for the Falcons. 

 

She bought herself a Falcon, remember that commercial???

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, NFLfan said:

 

Better than Peyton?

I am sure he means now. May be wrong though.

[Luck is Good]

Just now, NFLfan said:

 

Better than Peyton?

For one, I don't think Peyton is the best. One of the best, but not the best. And two, if Rodgers wins another SB or 2, considering what he has done in the regular season, he could very well be considered the best before it's all said and done

[Luck is Good]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am sure he means now. May be wrong though.

I do mean right now but considering how Rodgers does the rest of his career in terms of SB championships, he could catapault himself into the conversation of the best ever

[NFLfan]

1 minute ago, Luck is Good said:

For one, I don't think Peyton is the best. One of the best, but not the best. And two, if Rodgers wins another SB or 2, considering what he has done in the regular season, he could very well be considered the best before it's all said and done

 

He would have to win at least 3 more to be considered the best. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Luck is Good said:

I do mean right now but considering how Rodgers does the rest of his career in terms of SB championships, he could catapault himself into the conversation of the best ever

I agree. If Rodgers piles up more Stats and does get that 2nd SB win and another MVP, he moves into alot of convo for best ever talk. He still has a ways to go for that but he is awesome.

[Luck is Good]

I think he would need to win at least 3. If Peyton would have won 3, you could have made a very compelling case for him. Still can but not as much so imo

[NFLfan]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I agree. If Rodgers piles up more Stats and does get that 2nd SB win and another MVP, he moves into alot of convo for best ever talk. He still has a ways to go for that but he is awesome.

With 2 SBs, you would put him over Montana? 

[jshipp23]

Marino has zero super bowl wins, but is still the best of all time..Many qbs with multiple rings had great defenses..Just because they won more super bowls doesn't mean they are better..Marino, Montana, Brady, Manning in that order..

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, NFLfan said:

With 2 SBs, you would put him over Montana? 

No I wouldn't, I said he would be in the convo for that kind of talk if he gets #2 but he has to get more MVP's and pile up more Stats too.

[Luck is Good]

1 minute ago, NFLfan said:

With 2 SBs, you would put him over Montana? 

I wouldn't necessarily put him over Montana, but look at Aaron Rodgers by seasons. This is his 9th year as a starter. First year starting was the 08-09 season. Only two of the nine years did he throw double digit INTs. Couple that with all the TDs, possibly 2 regular season MVPs and possibly 2 SB Championships while winning MVP in both of those games. That is pretty amazing right there

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, jshipp23 said:

Marino has zero super bowl wins, but is still the best of all time..Many qbs with multiple rings had great defenses..Just because they won more super bowls doesn't mean they are better..Marino, Montana, Brady, Manning in that order..

I think winning 1 is important but I agree, Rings isn't the tell all. A lot of other things factor in too. Marino is definitely the best that hasn't won one.

[Luck is Good]

2 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

Marino has zero super bowl wins, but is still the best of all time..Many qbs with multiple rings had great defenses..Just because they won more super bowls doesn't mean they are better..Marino, Montana, Brady, Manning in that order..

That is why Marino is one of the best but not the best. You can't be the best QB ever with no SB championships

[jvan1973]

20 hours ago, Luck is Good said:

That is why Marino is one of the best but not the best. You can't be the best QB ever with no SB championships

Best ever is an opinion .  The criteria is different for everyone

[Luck is Good]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

Best ever is an opinion .  The criteria is different for everyone

Marino is as talented as any QB ever. That I can definitely say. I think him and Aaron Rodgers are the best on pure talent ability. The throws they make are extraordinary. But as we know, QB is the one position that is heavily scrutinized. It is the one position where number of championships plays a major factor

[2006Coltsbestever]

18 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Best ever is an opinion .  The criteria is different for everyone

A lot of criteria goes into it. Like Stats, League MVP's, SB MVP's, SB wins, Overall Games won, and yes Talent is huge too. Also the type of teams you play on. Troy Aikman won 3 SB's but he wasn't better than Marino but he had Emmitt Smith his whole career. Marino was just unfortunate he didn't win a Ring, a lot of that was he never had much of a Run game or Defense.

[Moose Of Woe]

On 1/15/2017 at 11:53 PM, jshipp23 said:

Marino has zero super bowl wins, but is still the best of all time..Many qbs with multiple rings had great defenses..Just because they won more super bowls doesn't mean they are better..Marino, Montana, Brady, Manning in that order..

I agree with Marino, not so much the order of the rest. But your point is valid.

[Moose Of Woe]

On 1/15/2017 at 11:56 PM, Luck is Good said:

That is why Marino is one of the best but not the best. You can't be the best QB ever with no SB championships

So you can't be the best QB, but you can be the best RB (Barry Sanders) WR (Moss) or any other position even if you have no ring? (I say Moss because, as far as anyone knows, he didn't use Stickem.)

 

In other sports, that might make more sense. There are 51 other guys, plus the coaching staff, who you're counting on to help win a championship no matter how good you are. You can't have the equivalent of Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan all but single handedly punking the entire opposing team.

 

Even when a QB makes a great throw, the receiver has to catch it. (Like the game winner in DAL. Great throw by Rodgers, great catch by Cook.) Even if you're not relying on them to make great plays, at bare minimum you have to hope one or more of those 51 don't royally screw things up all the way to a Superbowl. Hell, how many games are decided on kicks? 3 misses and if Pete Carroll weren't a fool in the SB - Brady has zero rings.  A couple of dropped passes against the Giants and he has 6. All out of his hands.

 

Anyway, Marino #1,  Rodgers on the fast track to the top even if he had zero rings. His team getting it done once is nice, but it's a footnote. As an INDIVIDUAL, he's lights out.

[jshipp23]

10 minutes ago, Moose Of Woe said:

I agree with Marino, not so much the order of the rest. But your point is valid.

Honestly id put manning ahead of brady because manning would have won just as much or more with belichik. ..

[Luck is Good]

10 minutes ago, Moose Of Woe said:

So you can't be the best QB, but you can be the best RB (Barry Sanders) WR (Moss) or any other position even if you have no ring? (I say Moss because, as far as anyone knows, he didn't use Stickem.)

 

In other sports, that might make more sense. There are 51 other guys, plus the coaching staff, who you're counting on to help win a championship no matter how good you are. You can't have the equivalent of Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan all but single handedly punking the entire opposing team.

 

Even when a QB makes a great throw, the receiver has to catch it. (Like the game winner in DAL. Great throw by Rodgers, great catch by Cook.) Even if you're not relying on them to make great plays, at bare minimum you have to hope one or more of those 51 don't royally screw things up all the way to a Superbowl. Hell, how many games are decided on kicks? 3 misses and if Pete Carroll weren't a fool in the SB - Brady has zero rings.  A couple of dropped passes against the Giants and he has 6. All out of his hands.

 

Anyway, Marino #1,  Rodgers on the fast track to the top even if he had zero rings. His team getting it done once is nice, but it's a footnote. As an INDIVIDUAL, he's lights out.

Any other position yes because QB is the one position where most people judge on championships. I'm not saying that's how it should be but that's how it is

[Luck is Good]

And Rodgers is the most physically gifted QB I've ever seen. Marino was great but Aaron Rodgers is just freaking awesome

[Moose Of Woe]

21 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

Honestly id put manning ahead of brady because manning would have won just as much or more with belichik. ..

While that's true, as far as longevity goes, Brady has maintained a high level of play for a longer period of time. And still going, no less.

 

Manning, even when he was breaking records on Denver, was a shell of his old self. He couldn't thread the needle past 10 yards like he used to, and lost a lot of zip on the ball. The last year and a half needs no explanation when he couldn't throw long at all. So overall career wise, you could say Brady and not be wrong.

 

However, taking every QB at their best, Manning was second to only Marino in my eyes.  Rodgers like old school Peyton can put the ball wherever he wants, on the move, across his body, and is a lot more mobile than Peyton. That's why I say he's insane. He has a great mental game, too. I don't know if anyone will ever beat Peyton at that, but he's outstanding.

[Luck is Good]

12 minutes ago, Moose Of Woe said:

While that's true, as far as longevity goes, Brady has maintained a higher level of play for a longer period of time. And still going, no less.

 

Manning, even when he was breaking records on Denver, was a shell of his old self. He couldn't thread the needle past 10 yards like he used to, and lost a lot of zip on the ball. The last year and a half needs no explanation when he couldn't throw long at all. So overall career wise, you could say Brady and not be wrong.

 

However, taking every QB at their best, Manning was second to only Marino in my eyes.  Rodgers like old school Peyton can put the ball wherever he wants, on the move, across his body, and is a lot more mobile than Peyton. That's why I say he's insane. He has a great mental game, too. I don't know if anyone will ever beat Peyton at that, but he's outstanding.

All of these QBs are outstanding talents. Marino, Rodgers, Peyton and Brady. I do think we get caught up in rings but that's just how most people view it

[jshipp23]

22 minutes ago, Moose Of Woe said:

While that's true, as far as longevity goes, Brady has maintained a high level of play for a longer period of time. And still going, no less.

 

Manning, even when he was breaking records on Denver, was a shell of his old self. He couldn't thread the needle past 10 yards like he used to, and lost a lot of zip on the ball. The last year and a half needs no explanation when he couldn't throw long at all. So overall career wise, you could say Brady and not be wrong.

 

However, taking every QB at their best, Manning was second to only Marino in my eyes.  Rodgers like old school Peyton can put the ball wherever he wants, on the move, across his body, and is a lot more mobile than Peyton. That's why I say he's insane. He has a great mental game, too. I don't know if anyone will ever beat Peyton at that, but he's outstanding.

Only thing with Rodgers is he hasn't played long enough...He physical talent wise is the best no doubt..