SUPERBOWL XLV

[Guest]

Agreed. I thought he was better in the second half but he still wasn't that great and he's definitely not going to get the criticism he deserves for it. Now he's got two crappy Super Bowl performances and one good one. But he's still going to be viewed by a lot of people as a great QB in the Manning-Brady-Brees-Rodgers discussion and a clutch player even though he's stunk on the biggest stage twice.

 

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people flat out say Ben's stats don't matter – and that they expect his numbers to be bad, because he's not as "pretty" as Peyton and Brady – but that he'll make a few good clutch throws and that's what matters.

 

That's ignoring that a poor overall performance is why you're in that clutch moment in the first place and not up by a decent margin (like the Packers were much of last night).

 

I like the "Is Ben a HOFer" arguments where people say that if he gets another ring, he's a lock for the HOF. Good to know that if Ben has a 2010 Brett Favre type season but Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl despite him playing horrible, it would put him over the top for the HOF.

[dew1679666265]

I like the "Is Ben a HOFer" arguments where people say that if he gets another ring, he's a lock for the HOF. Good to know that if Ben has a 2010 Brett Favre type season but Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl despite him playing horrible, it would put him over the top for the HOF.

 

Hey, all that matters is winning. If they won the Super Bowl, he must have been good, even if those pesky little stats disagreed. Right....?

[Tyrant]

I like the "Is Ben a HOFer" arguments where people say that if he gets another ring, he's a lock for the HOF. Good to know that if Ben has a 2010 Brett Favre type season but Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl despite him playing horrible, it would put him over the top for the HOF.

 

Hey, all that matters is winning. If they won the Super Bowl, he must have been good, even if those pesky little stats disagreed. Right....?

 

How did Roethlisberger's stats this year disagree with the idea of him being good?

[Magnetic Curses]

their biggest injuries were to grant and finley, a replaceable RB and a very good TE. the others were to players who were outplayed by their backups. they lost both games that rodgers either sat or mostly sat. if they lose an important player at an important position, they're out of the playoffs.

 

it's not like they lost a player like urlacher for the season.

 

Grant's yds/att for his career: 4.4

Jackson's yds/att this year: 3.7

 

Not a huge difference, but nearly a full yard less per carry isn't insignificant. Plus, consider John Kuhn (3.3 ypc) got more carries than he might have otherwise and that difference gets a little larger. It's not crippling for a team that passes most of the time, but it still hurts.

 

And a guy who, in his second year in the league, caught 55 passes for 676 yards (12.3 ypc) and five touchdowns is a good player to have around – even if he is only luxury. In eight fewer games this year, Finley caught 70 more yards, as many touchdowns and 3 more ypc than Andrew Quarless.

 

the overall difference was about a half yard per carry and still they weren't an incredibly different team from last year.

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

the bears in the 80's only went to won superbowl and were about as dominant a team as there could have been.

 

the packers played great in spurts in the postseason, but were by no means unbeatable. good, but incredibly lucky, as many super bowl teams are wont to do.

 

The biggest thing to me about the Packers this year is the way they were able to overcome injuries. Few teams make it an entire season without injuries, but the Packers got hit extra hard. If they can win the Super Bowl with Grant, Finley and both starting safeties out extended periods and Driver and Woodson out for much of the Super Bowl, what can they do mostly healthy?

 

their biggest injuries were to grant and finley, a replaceable RB and a very good TE. the others were to players who were outplayed by their backups. they lost both games that rodgers either sat or mostly sat. if they lose an important player at an important position, they're out of the playoffs.

 

it's not like they lost a player like urlacher for the season.

 

If Ryan Grant were "replaceable" the Packers would have developed some semblance of a consistent running game. Finley to Quarless/Crabtree/Lee is a significant drop. One of our starting tackles was on IR. Our starting ILB is on IR, and our starting safety was on IR. Say what you will about them not being "impact" players, but winning the Super Bowl with that many injuries is a testament to organizational depth. BTW, Urlacher is overrated.

[Guest]

Didn't Bears fans just spend the last month talking about how terrible Green Bay's running game was? Can't have it both ways.

[Magnetic Curses]

What happens if they remain completely healthy next year except for Rodgers who blows out a knee in the 3rd game?

 

They would be the same as any other team that loses an elite quarterback. I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.

 

ok, clay matthews then.

 

they lost luxury-type players.

sure, if they had lost Matthews on top of starters like Barnett, Grant, Finley, Jones, Burnett, Tauscher, they might not have had the 2nd-best point differential in all of football

 

point taken.

 

you were the one pimping bishop as one of the very best players in the league at his position and then mention the loss of barnett as a bad thing.

 

well done

[minnesotacubsfan]

Didn't Bears fans just spend the last month talking about how terrible Green Bay's running game was? Can't have it both ways.

 

its not great, and wont be with Grant either

 

I still think Starks is mediocre.

[Guest]

And MojoPin is right, they don't need to get to the SB to block the Bears from even making the playoffs. Doesn't help that Bears 3 best players are all over 30.

 

Cutler's not over 30.

 

Fine. 3 of their 4 best players.

[Magnetic Curses]

the bears in the 80's only went to won superbowl and were about as dominant a team as there could have been.

 

the packers played great in spurts in the postseason, but were by no means unbeatable. good, but incredibly lucky, as many super bowl teams are wont to do.

 

The biggest thing to me about the Packers this year is the way they were able to overcome injuries. Few teams make it an entire season without injuries, but the Packers got hit extra hard. If they can win the Super Bowl with Grant, Finley and both starting safeties out extended periods and Driver and Woodson out for much of the Super Bowl, what can they do mostly healthy?

 

their biggest injuries were to grant and finley, a replaceable RB and a very good TE. the others were to players who were outplayed by their backups. they lost both games that rodgers either sat or mostly sat. if they lose an important player at an important position, they're out of the playoffs.

 

it's not like they lost a player like urlacher for the season.

 

If Ryan Grant were "replaceable" the Packers would have developed some semblance of a consistent running game. Finley to Quarless/Crabtree/Lee is a significant drop. One of our starting tackles was on IR. Our starting ILB is on IR, and our starting safety was on IR. Say what you will about them not being "impact" players, but winning the Super Bowl with that many injuries is a testament to organizational depth. BTW, Urlacher is overrated.

 

the packers cause their damage through the air. losing grant was minimal, it hurt the overall running game, but who's to say that wasn't a good thing as it caused them to throw more.

 

1. peprah is better than bigby

 

2. bishop is better than barnett

 

3. for the urlacher comment, you're a pathetic troll

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

the bears in the 80's only went to won superbowl and were about as dominant a team as there could have been.

 

the packers played great in spurts in the postseason, but were by no means unbeatable. good, but incredibly lucky, as many super bowl teams are wont to do.

 

The biggest thing to me about the Packers this year is the way they were able to overcome injuries. Few teams make it an entire season without injuries, but the Packers got hit extra hard. If they can win the Super Bowl with Grant, Finley and both starting safeties out extended periods and Driver and Woodson out for much of the Super Bowl, what can they do mostly healthy?

 

their biggest injuries were to grant and finley, a replaceable RB and a very good TE. the others were to players who were outplayed by their backups. they lost both games that rodgers either sat or mostly sat. if they lose an important player at an important position, they're out of the playoffs.

 

it's not like they lost a player like urlacher for the season.

 

If Ryan Grant were "replaceable" the Packers would have developed some semblance of a consistent running game. Finley to Quarless/Crabtree/Lee is a significant drop. One of our starting tackles was on IR. Our starting ILB is on IR, and our starting safety was on IR. Say what you will about them not being "impact" players, but winning the Super Bowl with that many injuries is a testament to organizational depth. BTW, Urlacher is overrated.

 

the packers cause their damage through the air. losing grant was minimal, it hurt the overall running game, but who's to say that wasn't a good thing as it caused them to throw more.

 

1. peprah is better than bigby

 

2. bishop is better than barnett

 

3. for the urlacher comment, you're a pathetic troll

 

You brought Urlacher into it, he's very good, but Briggs is arguably better. Urlacher is probably the third best MLB in the NFL behind Willis and Lewis. I was also referring to Morgan Burnett. Bishop is our best ILB, but I'd take Barnett over Hawk.

[Magnetic Curses]

briggs being better than urlacher has nothing to do with it. the addition of urlacher and peppers to a bad defense instantly made them respectable. any bears fan can see what kind of difference urlacher made this year.

[Magnetic Curses]

Didn't Bears fans just spend the last month talking about how terrible Green Bay's running game was? Can't have it both ways.

 

i didn't. green bay is dangerous with or without a running game.

[Guest]

I like the "Is Ben a HOFer" arguments where people say that if he gets another ring, he's a lock for the HOF. Good to know that if Ben has a 2010 Brett Favre type season but Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl despite him playing horrible, it would put him over the top for the HOF.

 

Hey, all that matters is winning. If they won the Super Bowl, he must have been good, even if those pesky little stats disagreed. Right....?

 

How did Roethlisberger's stats this year disagree with the idea of him being good?

 

Neither myself nor dew is saying that Ben isn't a good quarterback. We're saying that many people put way too much emphasis (not just for Ben) on Super Bowl wins when evaluating how good a QB is, ignoring the fact (much like in baseball), that football is a team game and a lot more goes into to who wins than just how the quarterbacks played.

 

It goes the other way also. Now all of a sudden people think Rodgers is an elite QB solely because he won the Super Bowl while ignoring the fact that he's been a top-five QB in the league from 08-10.

Edited February 7, 2011 by soccer10k

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

briggs being better than urlacher has nothing to do with it. the addition of urlacher and peppers to a bad defense instantly made them respectable. any bears fan can see what kind of difference urlacher made this year.

 

I didn't say he was not good. I said he's overrated. And for the record Peppers had a much bigger impact then Urlacher, he was fantastic this season.

[minnesotacubsfan]

wait, Briggs is a better MLB then Urlacher?

 

I'm confused

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

wait, Briggs is a better MLB then Urlacher?

 

I'm confused

 

Better LB.

[minnesotacubsfan]

wait, Briggs is a better MLB then Urlacher?

 

I'm confused

 

Better LB.

 

but they don't play the same position, and in the Cover 2, they are different enough to make them incomparable.

 

Briggs at WLB w/ Urlacher at Middle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then Briggs at MLB and ANYONE at WLB, or Briggs at WLB and anyone not named Patrick Willis at MLB.

[Magnetic Curses]

briggs being better than urlacher has nothing to do with it. the addition of urlacher and peppers to a bad defense instantly made them respectable. any bears fan can see what kind of difference urlacher made this year.

 

I didn't say he was not good. I said he's overrated. And for the record Peppers had a much bigger impact then Urlacher, he was fantastic this season.

 

i don't think he did. the difference urlacher brought to the defense was immense and he is worth every bit of his rating at this point. if you know how the tampa-2 works, you know urlacher's coverage skills make him extremely valuable and irreplaceable within the defense.

[minnesotacubsfan]

yea, I know Peppers gets all the hype and he had some pretty good series, but I don't know that he was that big of an upgrade over OGUN as the hyperbole suggest. But not having a good running MLB in the middle REALLY hurt us last year. I think it gets overlooked. Look at GB's seam routes against Chicago vs their seam routes against the rest of the league. There is a reason Rodgers didnt play as well vs Chicago, and its not our All Pro safeties.

[Magnetic Curses]

urlacher forces the quarterback to be perfect on intermediate throws and is still fast enough in pursuit to be very valuable against the short passing game, he's the bullseye of the zone.

[ELCABALLO45]

When asked if he slept with the trophy last night McCarthy responded with

 

"My wife is to good looking to not sleep with her. I did not sleep with the trophy".

 

I love Mike McCarthy.

 

I have DVR'd about every sports show on tv in the past 24 hours.

[ELCABALLO45]

Rodgers played so damn good yesterday. His numbers (And Jordy Nelson's) would have been out of this world if for not for all those drops. Rodgers made Troy Polamalu look foolish multiple times last night.

[sneakypower]

you were the one pimping bishop as one of the very best players in the league at his position and then mention the loss of barnett as a bad thing.

 

well done

the 3-4 uses more than 1 ILB...

[Magnetic Curses]

you were the one pimping bishop as one of the very best players in the league at his position and then mention the loss of barnett as a bad thing.

 

well done

the 3-4 uses more than 1 ILB...

 

and if barnett doesn't go down, bishop doesn't get his chance.