Go back and watch Manning in that playoff run, they were lucky to have won a superbowl....Bottom line, he didn't get it done in Tampa, Gruden did.
soapbox
offline
offline
If the Colts and the Pats switched uniforms those playoffs, I'm sure you'd be talking about how the Pats got it done when they had to and how Manning threw an INT to seal a loss in the AFC Ship where he chokes as usual.
Dungy wasn't lucky to have won anything. Gruden is an offensive coach who did nothing for the defense. The TB defense you saw was all Dungy. Dungy took an offensive team (thanks to Mora) and added a defense in '05/'06.
Bottom line, Dungy got it done in Indianapolis. And they beat the Patriots in the process.
Dungy wasn't lucky to have won anything. Gruden is an offensive coach who did nothing for the defense. The TB defense you saw was all Dungy. Dungy took an offensive team (thanks to Mora) and added a defense in '05/'06.
Bottom line, Dungy got it done in Indianapolis. And they beat the Patriots in the process.
So what's your point, is Dungy a great Coach or great DC? Fact are facts, the Colts were lucky to have won the Superbowl. If you want to sit here and say how Brady did little to win a superbowl, step back and look at what Manning did to win that Superbowl. If anything he finally realized about the team concept and when the pressure was on he deferred to Addai, so I will give him credit for realizing his limitations in tight spots. Funny how Vinateri won all those Superbowls for the Patriots where Brady had little to do with moving the ball (the Pats used magic and the ball just mysteriously landed in FG range), but Soap fails to use the same logic when it comes to the Colts....Can't have it both ways!
soapbox
offline
offline
And now we get defensive.
Re-read my post. I'm saying that if the Pats replicated the Colts' 06 postseason (meaning they won the SB against the Bears with all the exact same things happening), you'd be saying that Belichick did all he could do get the win and you wouldn't be saying that they did little.
I was using your logic to defend this because I figure you'd agree with it more readily (which apparently was wrong). And besides, as a HC, a win is a win. It doesn't matter if your defense does it, your QB, your RB, or your kicker.
Dungy clearly set up the system in TB and Indy (minus the Colts' offense). Owners do bring in offensive coaches to help create offensive teams and defensive coaches for defensive teams. It's why Belichick was brought in and he put his stamp on the NE defense. Cowher/Noll did it for the Steelers. Brian Billick was brought in to give the Ravens an offense to an already great defense. You don't just have to be a DC to help the defense. Marvin Lewis was brought in to help the defense in a good offensive team. If you are saying that the HC isn't brought in to help one side of the ball, you're just flat out wrong. Dungy was brought in to help the defense. It took a few years of drafting and developing, but he got it right in '05.
The Colts were not lucky to have won the superbowl. I'm thinkin you just have the New England hate for Indy or something.
Let's put it this way. We can have it by my logic. If Indy is lucky to have a SB, NE is lucky to have any as well.
Dungy set up the system in TB and Gruden didn't do anything to improve it. Their offense went from 26th to 24th. The defense had no change in terms of its system. All Gruden did (besides knowing the Raiders' offense) was thank God for Dungy being fired a year too early.
There are Buccaneers who have even said that it was Dungy's system that won in '02.
Hell, the only team that I can think of atm that was legitimately lucky to have won a SB was NE with the Tuck rule. You can say facts are facts, but I mean the Colts won it without any luck. In fact, the Colts were unlucky. It rained in Miami. The Colts are an offensive team. The Bears are a defensive team. Advantage...who?
This is getting ridiculous man.
Re-read my post. I'm saying that if the Pats replicated the Colts' 06 postseason (meaning they won the SB against the Bears with all the exact same things happening), you'd be saying that Belichick did all he could do get the win and you wouldn't be saying that they did little.
I was using your logic to defend this because I figure you'd agree with it more readily (which apparently was wrong). And besides, as a HC, a win is a win. It doesn't matter if your defense does it, your QB, your RB, or your kicker.
Dungy clearly set up the system in TB and Indy (minus the Colts' offense). Owners do bring in offensive coaches to help create offensive teams and defensive coaches for defensive teams. It's why Belichick was brought in and he put his stamp on the NE defense. Cowher/Noll did it for the Steelers. Brian Billick was brought in to give the Ravens an offense to an already great defense. You don't just have to be a DC to help the defense. Marvin Lewis was brought in to help the defense in a good offensive team. If you are saying that the HC isn't brought in to help one side of the ball, you're just flat out wrong. Dungy was brought in to help the defense. It took a few years of drafting and developing, but he got it right in '05.
The Colts were not lucky to have won the superbowl. I'm thinkin you just have the New England hate for Indy or something.
Let's put it this way. We can have it by my logic. If Indy is lucky to have a SB, NE is lucky to have any as well.
Dungy set up the system in TB and Gruden didn't do anything to improve it. Their offense went from 26th to 24th. The defense had no change in terms of its system. All Gruden did (besides knowing the Raiders' offense) was thank God for Dungy being fired a year too early.
There are Buccaneers who have even said that it was Dungy's system that won in '02.
Hell, the only team that I can think of atm that was legitimately lucky to have won a SB was NE with the Tuck rule. You can say facts are facts, but I mean the Colts won it without any luck. In fact, the Colts were unlucky. It rained in Miami. The Colts are an offensive team. The Bears are a defensive team. Advantage...who?
This is getting ridiculous man.
Now that is a good post! Of course a HC has more influence on one side of the ball, I guess my point should have been is Dungy a better Coordinator or better HC. My logic, Wade Phillips is a pretty good DC, I think a terrible HC. My entire point with this "Let's put it this way. We can have it by my logic. If Indy is lucky to have a SB, NE is lucky to have any as well", was that if one was lucky to have one with a great kicker the other sure as hell was too. I'll disagree with you on two fronts though:
The Tuck Rule - Rules are rules, especially great when they work in your favor but people seem to forget that a penalty on Woodson should have been called for hands to the head of a QB and the game was not over at that point. True it sucked the life out of the Raiders and Vinateri's kick was one for the ages, but the Raiders had their chance and did nothing at the end.
Maybe luck isn't the right word here, maybe fortunate....
Kansas City Game - 3 INT's by Manning 3 FG's by Vinateri
Baltimore - 1 INT 5 FG's by Vinateri
New England - 1 INT 3 FG's Vinateri - Let's be honest here, great comeback but a wide open Reche Caldwell dropped TD allows Indy to come back - There is luck in the fact that they won this game, but have to give them credit for battling back and winning the game at home. To me, this was the Superbowl, clearly the two best teams that season. So the road to the superbowl sees Manning throw 2 TD's and 6 INT's in three games. I'll say if I showed these numbers before the game you would have to agree that they were fortunate to get to the Superbowl.
As far as the Superbowl, WR's know where they are going, CB's don't, so it isn't such a defensive advantage in the rain. If anything it hurts the running game for cuts, but with the balls they use, and the sausage fingers on these giants, does not hurt the passing game as much. Of course if Manning going 25-38 and Grossman going 20-28 is bad, then I guess the rain did hurt.
The Tuck Rule - Rules are rules, especially great when they work in your favor but people seem to forget that a penalty on Woodson should have been called for hands to the head of a QB and the game was not over at that point. True it sucked the life out of the Raiders and Vinateri's kick was one for the ages, but the Raiders had their chance and did nothing at the end.
Maybe luck isn't the right word here, maybe fortunate....
Kansas City Game - 3 INT's by Manning 3 FG's by Vinateri
Baltimore - 1 INT 5 FG's by Vinateri
New England - 1 INT 3 FG's Vinateri - Let's be honest here, great comeback but a wide open Reche Caldwell dropped TD allows Indy to come back - There is luck in the fact that they won this game, but have to give them credit for battling back and winning the game at home. To me, this was the Superbowl, clearly the two best teams that season. So the road to the superbowl sees Manning throw 2 TD's and 6 INT's in three games. I'll say if I showed these numbers before the game you would have to agree that they were fortunate to get to the Superbowl.
As far as the Superbowl, WR's know where they are going, CB's don't, so it isn't such a defensive advantage in the rain. If anything it hurts the running game for cuts, but with the balls they use, and the sausage fingers on these giants, does not hurt the passing game as much. Of course if Manning going 25-38 and Grossman going 20-28 is bad, then I guess the rain did hurt.
Edited by rjssob on Aug 13, 2009 08:44:59
kondor
offline
offline
Originally posted by csull36
lolgrossman
+1
Don't underestimate the impact of the owner of the team. Belichick might go down in history as the worst head coach in Browns history, however, he got to New England and found an owner that was willing to let him work his system and back him 100% on staffing and personnel decisions. That goes a long way to letting a head coach manage a team versus having to run the team and both sides of the ball.
Similar situation for the Colts and Dungy, but IMO, to a lesser extent.
That said, I still hate the Patriots.
lolgrossman
+1
Don't underestimate the impact of the owner of the team. Belichick might go down in history as the worst head coach in Browns history, however, he got to New England and found an owner that was willing to let him work his system and back him 100% on staffing and personnel decisions. That goes a long way to letting a head coach manage a team versus having to run the team and both sides of the ball.
Similar situation for the Colts and Dungy, but IMO, to a lesser extent.
That said, I still hate the Patriots.
StiffarmSteve
offline
offline
Huh? The Eagles got Ron Mexico?????
He'll give the Eagles a VD like he did that chick...
Do either of these come in green and white?
http://sportsmedia.ign.com/sports/image/article/602/602086/jersey-of-the-week-ron-mexico-20050406031734738-000.jpg
http://thesaloon.net/ronmexicojersey.jpg
He'll give the Eagles a VD like he did that chick...
Do either of these come in green and white?
http://sportsmedia.ign.com/sports/image/article/602/602086/jersey-of-the-week-ron-mexico-20050406031734738-000.jpg
http://thesaloon.net/ronmexicojersey.jpg
Edited by StiffarmSteve on Aug 14, 2009 09:00:46
GMathiasf
offline
offline
lol @ people still discussing the tuck rule. That ruling was terrible and the reading of the rule that makes it believed legitimate is laughable at best. Essentially, a QB can pump fake right at the beginning of the play and as long as he hasn't tucked the ball back in, it's technically not a fumble if he gets hit. Of course, we would all agree that that's stupid, but that's the way the rule is written. Brady clearly had finished his pump fake (not technically a pump fake, more like a check swing for a QB) when Woodson knocked the ball loose, but he never tucked the ball into his body because he was just holding it out there still and even had his 2nd hand on it. It's a stupid rule to begin with and an even more ridiculous interpretation of the rule made in that game. I can't stand the Raiders, but they got fucked in that game.
As far as the Manning vs. Brady in the post-season comparisons, it's just silly. Both are great QBs. I think that most people would say that Manning is the best pure QB of the two, but Brady has that intangible quality of just gutting out wins, especially in big games (see Superbowl 36). Neither has won anything without a great team around them. Both have had incredible careers with record breaking seasons, Super bowl wins, and unheard of durability (with the exception of Brady's knee last season). Give them both props.
As far as the Manning vs. Brady in the post-season comparisons, it's just silly. Both are great QBs. I think that most people would say that Manning is the best pure QB of the two, but Brady has that intangible quality of just gutting out wins, especially in big games (see Superbowl 36). Neither has won anything without a great team around them. Both have had incredible careers with record breaking seasons, Super bowl wins, and unheard of durability (with the exception of Brady's knee last season). Give them both props.
GMathiasf
offline
offline
Originally posted by rjssob
people seem to forget that a penalty on Woodson should have been called for hands to the head of a QB and the game was not over at that point.
You can't be serious with this? I know that you've seen the play, but maybe you had a TV that showed Woodson with a 3rd arm that was invisible to most TVs. I assure you that no one outside of Massachusetts saw a penalty that should have been called on that play. The refs didn't see it. It wasn't there. That's your blatant homerism at work there.
As far as the game was not over. I can't say that I remember the exact facts of the situation (time outs remaining on each side), but I know that it would have been Oakland ball with under 2 minutes to play and New England would have had a long way to go under those shitty circumstances. In all essence, the game was over though.
people seem to forget that a penalty on Woodson should have been called for hands to the head of a QB and the game was not over at that point.
You can't be serious with this? I know that you've seen the play, but maybe you had a TV that showed Woodson with a 3rd arm that was invisible to most TVs. I assure you that no one outside of Massachusetts saw a penalty that should have been called on that play. The refs didn't see it. It wasn't there. That's your blatant homerism at work there.
As far as the game was not over. I can't say that I remember the exact facts of the situation (time outs remaining on each side), but I know that it would have been Oakland ball with under 2 minutes to play and New England would have had a long way to go under those shitty circumstances. In all essence, the game was over though.
soapbox
offline
offline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHEQtASq9BI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpq62BCh5U
No hands to the face btw.
[Edit: Removed part due to inaccuracy of sources] even if Woodson grazed Brady's helmet, Woodson hit that secondarily. It was not a foul at all.
E2: Btw, by the wording of the rule, all contact to the offense's helmet is illegal. It's a discretionary kind of rule, and if you're gonna say that should be a penalty, lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpq62BCh5U
No hands to the face btw.
[Edit: Removed part due to inaccuracy of sources] even if Woodson grazed Brady's helmet, Woodson hit that secondarily. It was not a foul at all.
E2: Btw, by the wording of the rule, all contact to the offense's helmet is illegal. It's a discretionary kind of rule, and if you're gonna say that should be a penalty, lol.
Edited by soapbox on Aug 16, 2009 10:50:38
Edited by soapbox on Aug 16, 2009 10:49:16
Originally posted by soapbox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHEQtASq9BI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpq62BCh5U
No hands to the face btw.
[Edit: Removed part due to inaccuracy of sources] even if Woodson grazed Brady's helmet, Woodson hit that secondarily. It was not a foul at all.
E2: Btw, by the wording of the rule, all contact to the offense's helmet is illegal. It's a discretionary kind of rule, and if you're gonna say that should be a penalty, lol.
First off, I honestly believe it was a fumble, but rules are rules especially when they work for you! I have watched the game 100 times, I don't need to see the clip. Woodson clearly comes across his head with his right arm which is a penalty in the NFL. Saying that, do I think it should have been called, no I do not. Too many rules these days and the league is basically going to put a flag in the QB's belt make hitting them a thing of the past.
Soap, what exactly does it mean when you hit someone secondarily and fouls are for hoop, penalties are football. Let's get the season started!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHEQtASq9BI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpq62BCh5U
No hands to the face btw.
[Edit: Removed part due to inaccuracy of sources] even if Woodson grazed Brady's helmet, Woodson hit that secondarily. It was not a foul at all.
E2: Btw, by the wording of the rule, all contact to the offense's helmet is illegal. It's a discretionary kind of rule, and if you're gonna say that should be a penalty, lol.
First off, I honestly believe it was a fumble, but rules are rules especially when they work for you! I have watched the game 100 times, I don't need to see the clip. Woodson clearly comes across his head with his right arm which is a penalty in the NFL. Saying that, do I think it should have been called, no I do not. Too many rules these days and the league is basically going to put a flag in the QB's belt make hitting them a thing of the past.
Soap, what exactly does it mean when you hit someone secondarily and fouls are for hoop, penalties are football. Let's get the season started!
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
