Official NFL Super Bowl 50 Thread

[DeacHawk]

I know it's tough to hang up the cleats, but Manning lost the golden opportunity to retire and soak in the glory. A retirement announcement next month will be meh. He would be so stupid to Brett Farve it.

No way he comes back next year Favre style. He's done and he knows it. I think he didn't announce last night out of respect for his teammates and the defense, who should've gotten all the attention. It's already been more about him than play on the field says it should be, and announcing his retirement last night would've only made it even more about him.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/02/07/super-bowl-50-broncos-panthers-peyton-manning-peter-king

“I called him,” said Dungy, “and I said, ‘I don’t know what you’re going to do, but if you haven’t decided yet, don’t decide now. Don’t decide at halftime of the last game, or five minutes after the last game. Don’t do it in the moment.’ I think Dick Vermeil made that decision in the moment, and he regretted it. I said, ‘Let the adrenalin wear off and then decide.’”

As Manning said Sunday night, “I thought that was some good advice, to take some time and get away. Coach said, ‘Promise me you’ll do that. It felt like I was back in Indy and he was telling me, ‘Hey, be smart with this ball on third down.’ So it was good advice and I’m going to take some time. But like I said, I have a peace about it either way.”

 

[bmoneydeac]

Cam - QBR-16.9 with rating of 55.4 - comp%=43.9
Manning - QBR-9.9 with rating of 56.6 - comp%=56.5

Ouch for both QBRs. Obviously, Manning understood what needed to happen for Broncos to win but certainly wasn't outplayed by Cam.

Considering the drops for both teams it's hard to say Cam didn't outplay Peyton, QBR be damned.

 

[Pilchard]

Cam - QBR-16.9 with rating of 55.4 - comp%=43.9
Manning - QBR-9.9 with rating of 56.6 - comp%=56.5

Ouch for both QBRs. Obviously, Manning understood what needed to happen for Broncos to win but certainly wasn't outplayed by Cam.

This points up the fallacy in "the rings" argument as Manning was awful for the 2016 season (hands down the worst year of his 18 year career outside of possibly his rookie season), and essentially Manning got his 2nd ring, because he didn't lose the Super Bowl for the Broncos. Brock Osweiler could've started last night and the Broncos would've won. Yet, you will hear the inevitable blowhard claim that the 2nd ring somehow brings more validation to Manning's career. There were at least 20 NFL QBs better than Manning this year, and all of them could've not lost the Super Bowl, just like Manning didn't lose it. There are so many factors that go into "winning a ring" (e.g., quality of teammates, quality of opponent, injuries. luck - the Steelers fumble in the 4th Quarter of the divisional playoff game when their were about to seal the game; the Malcolm Butler pick last year), just hate it when lazy analysts assess individuals careers with a massive over emphasis on the "ring" theory.

 

[timthedeac]

This points up the fallacy in "the rings" argument as Manning was awful for the 2016 season (hands down the worst year of his 18 year career outside of possibly his rookie season), and essentially Manning got his 2nd ring, because he didn't lose the Super Bowl for the Broncos. Brock Osweiler could've started last night and the Broncos would've won. Yet, you will hear the inevitable blowhard claim that the 2nd ring somehow brings more validation to Manning's career. There were at least 20 NFL QBs better than Manning this year, and all of them could've not lost the Super Bowl, just like Manning didn't lose it. There are so many factors that go into "winning a ring" (e.g., quality of teammates, quality of opponent, injuries. luck - the Steelers fumble in the 4th Quarter of the divisional playoff game when their were about to seal the game; the Malcolm Butler pick last year), just hate it when lazy analysts assess individuals careers with a massive over emphasis on the "ring" theory.

You do realize it's us Manning fans who have been screaming for years that rings don't matter, don't you?

 

[421Deac]

This points up the fallacy in "the rings" argument.

Agreed. Manning certainly played the QB position well enough to earn more rings but didn't have the supporting cast or necessary defense to do so. Heard many say it's fitting that Manning got that elusive 2nd ring by having a defense that could carry him.

 

[cville deac]

No way he comes back next year Favre style. He's done and he knows it. I think he didn't announce last night out of respect for his teammates and the defense, who should've gotten all the attention. It's already been more about him than play on the field says it should be, and announcing his retirement last night would've only made it even more about him.

This.

 

[cville deac]

This points up the fallacy in "the rings" argument as Manning was awful for the 2016 season (hands down the worst year of his 18 year career outside of possibly his rookie season), and essentially Manning got his 2nd ring, because he didn't lose the Super Bowl for the Broncos. Brock Osweiler could've started last night and the Broncos would've won. Yet, you will hear the inevitable blowhard claim that the 2nd ring somehow brings more validation to Manning's career. There were at least 20 NFL QBs better than Manning this year, and all of them could've not lost the Super Bowl, just like Manning didn't lose it. There are so many factors that go into "winning a ring" (e.g., quality of teammates, quality of opponent, injuries. luck - the Steelers fumble in the 4th Quarter of the divisional playoff game when their were about to seal the game; the Malcolm Butler pick last year), just hate it when lazy analysts assess individuals careers with a massive over emphasis on the "ring" theory.

Which I why I was kinda rooting for Denver, though I usually like Carolina a bit more than Denver. I wanted Manning to get a 2nd ring when he sucked to show the fallacy of the rings argument that you hear from all the Brady and Montana fans. Not that Brady and Montana weren't fantastic. But if I had to pick the 5 best QBs ever, I'd say Unitas, Montana, Marino, Manning and Brady. Hard to differentiate between them given the eras are so different, and the game has changed to make it incredibly friendlier to Manning and Brady. Even in the 1980s, you could still mug WRs and hit the QB quite hard without getting a rule change the following offseason. And of those 5, if I had to pick 1, I'd probably pick Marino (and I've always disliked the Phins). Wasn't his fault his defenses were always shite, but you still hear all the crap about him never getting a ring. Add to that Plunkett, Dilfer, Hostetler, Rypien and Doug Williams all have rings as starting QBs. QBs always get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses.

 

[PhDeac]

Where does "one great season" or "one great postseason" fall into your rings argument?

 

[cville deac]

Where does "one great season" or "one great postseason" fall into your rings argument?

When you're comparing all-time greats, 1 great season or postseason doesn't put you in the discussion. You need to be seen as near the best at your position over a long period of time.

 

[Bones McKinney]

Which I why I was kinda rooting for Denver, though I usually like Carolina a bit more than Denver. I wanted Manning to get a 2nd ring when he sucked to show the fallacy of the rings argument that you hear from all the Brady and Montana fans. Not that Brady and Montana weren't fantastic. But if I had to pick the 5 best QBs ever, I'd say Unitas, Montana, Marino, Manning and Brady. Hard to differentiate between them given the eras are so different, and the game has changed to make it incredibly friendlier to Manning and Brady. Even in the 1980s, you could still mug WRs and hit the QB quite hard without getting a rule change the following offseason. And of those 5, if I had to pick 1, I'd probably pick Marino (and I've always disliked the Phins). Wasn't his fault his defenses were always shite, but you still hear all the crap about him never getting a ring. Add to that Plunkett, Dilfer, Hostetler, Rypien and Doug Williams all have rings as starting QBs. QBs always get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses.

So true. Peyton Manning had many great years where he did not have a great running game behind him to help control the ball and definitely not a great defense like he had this year. All that goes part and parcel with winning a championship. He should have had it a couple of seasons ago but his defensive back let the bomb go over his head against Baltimore. Who knows. Dan Marino was definitely a great QB who never had the total parts around him. Lots of luck has to go into it also and a great call like the onside kick the New Orleans Saints pulled against the Colts to open the half that turned that game around. And we all know of the shenanigans that Belicheat has pulled to win at all costs up in New England.