Richard Sherman, replaceable or not...what say you?

[monkey]

I'm certainly not worried about it, but I do like to engage in the mental exercise of the debate. It's fun, and that's the point of a forum really isn't it? Even if comparing defenses from radically different eras is basically an exercise in futility, as it's more akin to comparing apples to meatloaf than apples to oranges, it is still fun to debate.

My own personal opinion of all this is, our defense played the greatest Super Bowl game EVER! I think it's simply inarguable. Beating down the statistically greatest offense of all time, in the fashion our defense did it, is simply, unarguably, the GREATEST defensive performance in any Super Bowl ever, in my opinion.

I don't think it was the greatest regular season defense ever, but it WAS top five for sure! It's at least in the conversation with the Ravens, Buccaneers, Bears, Steelers and whoever else you may want to throw in there. Personally I'd put them third, behind the 2000 Ravens and 85 Bears, but ahead of the Buccaneers and Steelers.
I would lean towards saying the 2000 Ravens defense was the best I've ever seen for a single season, they pitched more shutouts, and had so few points scored against them, I just have to give it to them, though that 85 Bears defense was absolutely BRUTAL, and I would probably put them a very close second on that list, so close that you could basically call them 1a and 1b.

The Steel Curtain defense was the best I've ever seen for sustained success and in terms of overall talent. Those Steel Curtain defenses had literally 7 out of their 11 defensive players in the pro bowl regularly, and deservedly. So though I don't think they put together the top season ever, I give them the best defense of all time, simply for maintaining such an extremely high level for multiple years.

As for the Russell Wilson debate, all I know is that, while it's true he's surrounded by some very good players, especially on the defensive side, he also had to deal with a statistically terrible offensive line for most of the year, and while Seahawks fans know that our receivers are better than Chris Carter wants to admit, they're also not outstanding by any stretch. When you throw in the relative lack of production from the tight end spot, our total receiving corps looks almost pedestrian. Of course we all know they are better than their numbers would indicate, the lack of opportunities keeps their numbers down, NOT the lack of talent!
Still, in the end, Wilson has done exactly what's been asked of him in the offense, he's put aside his pride and put a leash on the desire ever QB has to go out and wing it, (something he is absolutely capable of doing if he were asked to though), and has played controlled smart football, and won doing it.
Personally I wouldn't trade him for Andrew Luck. I think he's the perfect "point guard" QB for our system. He'll always be underrated because of his size and because of what he's asked to do, but we Seahawks fans will always be able to point to certain things such as, since he arrived we've not lost a single game by more than 7 points, to show just how valuable he really is. We know the truth, and that's good enough for now, he will educate everyone else as the years roll on and he just keeps on winning.

[savvyman]

My own personal opinion of all this is, our defense played the greatest Super Bowl game EVER! I think it's simply inarguable. Beating down the statistically greatest offense of all time, in the fashion our defense did it, is simply, unarguably, the GREATEST defensive performance in any Super Bowl ever, in my opinion.

May the closing paragraph of the final chapter of the NFL 2013 season book of record reflect exactly what is written here.

[Oly]

I'm certainly not worried about it, but I do like to engage in the mental exercise of the debate. It's fun, and that's the point of a forum really isn't it? Even if comparing defenses from radically different eras is basically an exercise in futility, as it's more akin to comparing apples to meatloaf than apples to oranges, it is still fun to debate.

My own personal opinion of all this is, our defense played the greatest Super Bowl game EVER! I think it's simply inarguable. Beating down the statistically greatest offense of all time, in the fashion our defense did it, is simply, unarguably, the GREATEST defensive performance in any Super Bowl ever, in my opinion.

I don't think it was the greatest regular season defense ever, but it WAS top five for sure! It's at least in the conversation with the Ravens, Buccaneers, Bears, Steelers and whoever else you may want to throw in there. Personally I'd put them third, behind the 2000 Ravens and 85 Bears, but ahead of the Buccaneers and Steelers.
I would lean towards saying the 2000 Ravens defense was the best I've ever seen for a single season, they pitched more shutouts, and had so few points scored against them, I just have to give it to them, though that 85 Bears defense was absolutely BRUTAL, and I would probably put them a very close second on that list, so close that you could basically call them 1a and 1b.

The Steel Curtain defense was the best I've ever seen for sustained success and in terms of overall talent. Those Steel Curtain defenses had literally 7 out of their 11 defensive players in the pro bowl regularly, and deservedly. So though I don't think they put together the top season ever, I give them the best defense of all time, simply for maintaining such an extremely high level for multiple years.

As for the Russell Wilson debate, all I know is that, while it's true he's surrounded by some very good players, especially on the defensive side, he also had to deal with a statistically terrible offensive line for most of the year, and while Seahawks fans know that our receivers are better than Chris Carter wants to admit, they're also not outstanding by any stretch. When you throw in the relative lack of production from the tight end spot, our total receiving corps looks almost pedestrian. Of course we all know they are better than their numbers would indicate, the lack of opportunities keeps their numbers down, NOT the lack of talent!
Still, in the end, Wilson has done exactly what's been asked of him in the offense, he's put aside his pride and put a leash on the desire ever QB has to go out and wing it, (something he is absolutely capable of doing if he were asked to though), and has played controlled smart football, and won doing it.
Personally I wouldn't trade him for Andrew Luck. I think he's the perfect "point guard" QB for our system. He'll always be underrated because of his size and because of what he's asked to do, but we Seahawks fans will always be able to point to certain things such as, since he arrived we've not lost a single game by more than 7 points, to show just how valuable he really is. We know the truth, and that's good enough for now, he will educate everyone else as the years roll on and he just keeps on winning.

Great post. I agree completely.

[RiverDog]

I'm certainly not worried about it, but I do like to engage in the mental exercise of the debate. It's fun, and that's the point of a forum really isn't it? Even if comparing defenses from radically different eras is basically an exercise in futility, as it's more akin to comparing apples to meatloaf than apples to oranges, it is still fun to debate.

My own personal opinion of all this is, our defense played the greatest Super Bowl game EVER! I think it's simply inarguable. Beating down the statistically greatest offense of all time, in the fashion our defense did it, is simply, unarguably, the GREATEST defensive performance in any Super Bowl ever, in my opinion.

I don't think it was the greatest regular season defense ever, but it WAS top five for sure! It's at least in the conversation with the Ravens, Buccaneers, Bears, Steelers and whoever else you may want to throw in there. Personally I'd put them third, behind the 2000 Ravens and 85 Bears, but ahead of the Buccaneers and Steelers.
I would lean towards saying the 2000 Ravens defense was the best I've ever seen for a single season, they pitched more shutouts, and had so few points scored against them, I just have to give it to them, though that 85 Bears defense was absolutely BRUTAL, and I would probably put them a very close second on that list, so close that you could basically call them 1a and 1b.

The Steel Curtain defense was the best I've ever seen for sustained success and in terms of overall talent. Those Steel Curtain defenses had literally 7 out of their 11 defensive players in the pro bowl regularly, and deservedly. So though I don't think they put together the top season ever, I give them the best defense of all time, simply for maintaining such an extremely high level for multiple years.

As for the Russell Wilson debate, all I know is that, while it's true he's surrounded by some very good players, especially on the defensive side, he also had to deal with a statistically terrible offensive line for most of the year, and while Seahawks fans know that our receivers are better than Chris Carter wants to admit, they're also not outstanding by any stretch. When you throw in the relative lack of production from the tight end spot, our total receiving corps looks almost pedestrian. Of course we all know they are better than their numbers would indicate, the lack of opportunities keeps their numbers down, NOT the lack of talent!
Still, in the end, Wilson has done exactly what's been asked of him in the offense, he's put aside his pride and put a leash on the desire ever QB has to go out and wing it, (something he is absolutely capable of doing if he were asked to though), and has played controlled smart football, and won doing it.
Personally I wouldn't trade him for Andrew Luck. I think he's the perfect "point guard" QB for our system. He'll always be underrated because of his size and because of what he's asked to do, but we Seahawks fans will always be able to point to certain things such as, since he arrived we've not lost a single game by more than 7 points, to show just how valuable he really is. We know the truth, and that's good enough for now, he will educate everyone else as the years roll on and he just keeps on winning.

Great post. I agree completely.

Good post, monkey, and I, too, agree with your points. Judging by the quality of the competition, our defense turned in the best ever performance in SB history. One of my favorite, most overlooked defenses is Miami's No Name Defense of the early 70's, but the '72 Dolphins went up against Billy Kilmer's Washington Redskins, not future HOF'er Peyton Manning's Denver Broncos.

I also agree with your comments about Russell. So what if he was a game manager? Quarterback is no different than any other position on the team. You do what is asked and what is necessary for you team to win the game.

[Eaglehawk]

I'm certainly not worried about it, but I do like to engage in the mental exercise of the debate. It's fun, and that's the point of a forum really isn't it? Even if comparing defenses from radically different eras is basically an exercise in futility, as it's more akin to comparing apples to meatloaf than apples to oranges, it is still fun to debate.

My own personal opinion of all this is, our defense played the greatest Super Bowl game EVER! I think it's simply inarguable. Beating down the statistically greatest offense of all time, in the fashion our defense did it, is simply, unarguably, the GREATEST defensive performance in any Super Bowl ever, in my opinion.

I don't think it was the greatest regular season defense ever, but it WAS top five for sure! It's at least in the conversation with the Ravens, Buccaneers, Bears, Steelers and whoever else you may want to throw in there. Personally I'd put them third, behind the 2000 Ravens and 85 Bears, but ahead of the Buccaneers and Steelers.
I would lean towards saying the 2000 Ravens defense was the best I've ever seen for a single season, they pitched more shutouts, and had so few points scored against them, I just have to give it to them, though that 85 Bears defense was absolutely BRUTAL, and I would probably put them a very close second on that list, so close that you could basically call them 1a and 1b.

The Steel Curtain defense was the best I've ever seen for sustained success and in terms of overall talent. Those Steel Curtain defenses had literally 7 out of their 11 defensive players in the pro bowl regularly, and deservedly. So though I don't think they put together the top season ever, I give them the best defense of all time, simply for maintaining such an extremely high level for multiple years.

As for the Russell Wilson debate, all I know is that, while it's true he's surrounded by some very good players, especially on the defensive side, he also had to deal with a statistically terrible offensive line for most of the year, and while Seahawks fans know that our receivers are better than Chris Carter wants to admit, they're also not outstanding by any stretch. When you throw in the relative lack of production from the tight end spot, our total receiving corps looks almost pedestrian. Of course we all know they are better than their numbers would indicate, the lack of opportunities keeps their numbers down, NOT the lack of talent!
Still, in the end, Wilson has done exactly what's been asked of him in the offense, he's put aside his pride and put a leash on the desire ever QB has to go out and wing it, (something he is absolutely capable of doing if he were asked to though), and has played controlled smart football, and won doing it.
Personally I wouldn't trade him for Andrew Luck. I think he's the perfect "point guard" QB for our system. He'll always be underrated because of his size and because of what he's asked to do, but we Seahawks fans will always be able to point to certain things such as, since he arrived we've not lost a single game by more than 7 points, to show just how valuable he really is. We know the truth, and that's good enough for now, he will educate everyone else as the years roll on and he just keeps on winning.

Yes, I was going to smack you around a bit for your opinion, but guess what? You mentioned that the Steel Curtain was the best defense ever. I agree. I have to shut up on that point. You covered your bases well. Even if you use the apples to oranges scenario, I STILL think that the Steelers had the best defense ever in the NFL. At least this year, maybe that will change? Time will tell. But I was too young to remember watching those guys. I remember the Bradshaw name, but mostly I remember Joe Nammath only because my dad kept mentioning his name to my uncles who would visit the house. Weird. But I knew nothing about the Steel Curtain, when i was 10 years old except some of the players names. Now a days, everything I have read and seen about the Steel Curtain is from Wiki, or You Tube or metacafe.com and yes, they were the best defense of all time.
It is what it is.
But I do remember the 85 Bears(oh my goodness)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxIRJp14_cM and the Ravens, and from my personal experience, the Seahawks D ranks second to the Bears. I remember the Bears, and I KNOW they were better than the hawks not only because of the stats, but because of that SB shuffle song they made( ), which I actually LOVED back in the day. First time I had seen a team actually look so cool. With the Fridge, Singletary and Walter Peyton. I am a musician as well, and what is remarkable is that all of those singing on this rap video HAD RHYTHM and were able to hold their own during their solos! Even the kicker and McMahon! The one guy that I thought was going to lose it was Singletary actually. It was a classic that STILL when I watch it makes me smile and sends shivers up my spine.
That song, is one of the main reasons I respect that team, and of course Ditka. I know its a stupid reason, but I was young and impressionable back then. These cats were ahead of their time in a sense. Cause they were the first to do this. Didn't the Seahawks have a locker room video back in the day as well? No time to look it up, if you guys remember please post the link. But as to the Bears, I would even argue that they were America's team that one year. I know I wanted them to win that year.
The 2000 Ravens are 3rd, in my opinion.

You can go either way and still make a respectable argument, but I feel that the best SB performance that I have seen LIVE ON TV, on Defense was the 85 Bears. They knew they were the best as well, they were badass and they knew it. That is why they made that video. It was a statement. They had the best D for a SB that I can remember. They knew it! And I respect them for that.
However number 2 is the Seahawks. And if we win the SB for next season? ...

Nice post, M.

[monkey]

Eaglehawk, thanks. Allow me to respectfully disagree a little though

I remember that 85 Bears team, and that Superbowl quite well, and I have to disagree with your assessment about that Superbowl performance.
They rolled over a weak Patriots team, with a lousy QB, (two actually) EVERYONE expected the Bears to not just win, but destroy the Patriots. I mean, the whole country knew the Patriots were going to get blown out.
That's not a special performance, that's just taking care of business against a severely outmatched opponent.

What Seattle did this last year, against a team favored in Vegas, a team that set essentially every single season passing record that ever really mattered, the statistically greatest offense EVER, stands well above anything the Bears did.
Was the Bears defense great for that season? Yeah, but their Superbowl win was not really that special IMO, as it was completely expected. What Seattle did, beating the greatest offense ever, completely eclipses that IMO.

Also, that Superbowl shuffle was just a Johnny-come-lately thing, because the Seahawks did "The Blue Wave is on a Roll" first. The real innovators (as usual) were the Seahawks.

[Eaglehawk]

Eaglehawk, thanks. Allow me to respectfully disagree a little though

I remember that 85 Bears team, and that Superbowl quite well, and I have to disagree with your assessment about that Superbowl performance.
They rolled over a weak Patriots team, with a lousy QB, (two actually) EVERYONE expected the Bears to not just win, but destroy the Patriots. I mean, the whole country knew the Patriots were going to get blown out.
That's not a special performance, that's just taking care of business against a severely outmatched opponent.

What Seattle did this last year, against a team favored in Vegas, a team that set essentially every single season passing record that ever really mattered, the statistically greatest offense EVER, stands well above anything the Bears did.
Was the Bears defense great for that season? Yeah, but their Superbowl win was not really that special IMO, as it was completely expected. What Seattle did, beating the greatest offense ever, completely eclipses that IMO.

Also, that Superbowl shuffle was just a Johnny-come-lately thing, because the Seahawks did "The Blue Wave is on a Roll" first. The real innovators (as usual) were the Seahawks.

I understand why you feel the Hawks are the best D the SB has ever seen. They beat the best offense possibly in the history of the game. The Pats offense does not compare to the Broncos offense. I admit that.

However when you look at apples to apples stats, the Bear win out a little. The Patriots had just 12 first downs, seven rushing yards, and 116 passing yards. They also forced six turnovers in the game (four fumbles, two interceptions), and dominated time of possession by a nearly 2/1 margin. As for the Bears’ offense, they racked up 408 yards, including 167 on the ground, and saw Jim McMahon throw for 256 yards while rushing for two touchdowns in the easy victory.
As for the Seahawks, their numbers were ok, but not as good as the Bears numbers. The Broncos got 17 first downs in the game, and while they only rushed for 27 yards, Manning threw for 280 and set a Super Bowl record for most completions in a game with 34. He did throw two interceptions, including that pick six to Smith.

On the offensive side of the ball, the Seahawks were good, but not quite to the level of the Bears. Russell Wilson threw for 206 yards in the game, including two touchdowns, and also rushed for 26 yards. The Seahawks did rack up 135 yards rushing in the contest, giving them an impressive total of 341 yards of offense.
If we were just judging solely by what the Bears and Seahawks did in their respective Super Bowl victories, then the Bears would come out on top.

That's why I say the 85 Bears performed better during the SB. But, your argument is compelling as well Monkey, we beat the best offense in the history of the NFL. So why aren't we the best SB defense? That's a good argument.

Moving on to music now:

Ya gonna tell me that crackerjack song "The Blue Wave is on a Roll aka Locker Room Rock" is better than that Bears Superbowl Shuffle? (You didn't say that I am messing with you though, indulge me please).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-9AdWthjfU BTW I thought the SB shuffle was first then it was the Seahawks song and some Patriots song which was even worse, but I'll believe you on that point since I am too lazy to look it up.

Our song sounded like a cross between that song Yakity Yak and some honkey tonk Waylon Jennings song, maybe Hillbilly Fever? Which is not bad, if you are into that, but the Superbowl Shuffle just seems to have more of a beat to my ears as least.


So Monkey tell me honestly which song do you like better?

[Zorn76]

I just don't get the whole "game manager" label for RW. I really don't.

Because even though he is being asked to play it safe, he still takes shots down the field, or will throw well beyond the sticks on 3rd and short with no hesitation. And many times, these decisions have paid off.

True game managing QB's like Alex Smith are too afraid, more often than not, to take chances under just about any circumstance. They check down too quick after making one, maybe two reads, if they bother at all.

I understand that the label came from the media, not so much from posters here or other forums, and this isn't an attack on anybody here who sees it otherwise. For myself, though, Wilson just improvises way too much to be tagged with that moniker.

[briwas101]

I just don't get the whole "game manager" label for RW. I really don't.

Because even though he is being asked to play it safe, he still takes shots down the field, or will throw well beyond the sticks on 3rd and short with no hesitation. And many times, these decisions have paid off.

True game managing QB's like Alex Smith are too afraid, more often than not, to take chances under just about any circumstance. They check down too quick after making one, maybe two reads, if they bother at all.

I understand that the label came from the media, not so much from posters here or other forums, and this isn't an attack on anybody here who sees it otherwise. For myself, though, Wilson just improvises way too much to be tagged with that moniker.

While wilson is definitely more than just a game manager, he does kind of fit into that category and I can see why people would label him as such.

The Seahawks are built around defense and running the ball (which is why it is even weirder we were the only team with 2 WRS making $8m...) so from a gameplan perspective Wilson's job is to protect the ball and make the most of his (relatively low) pass attempts.

It doesn't mean he doesnt have the ability to carry the team on offense, but if Wilson has to carry us on his back to victory then it means our gameplan failed and our D most likely had a bad game.

When defense and running the ball are both more important to the team's plan than passing it is pretty hard to avoid the "game manager" label. It is what it is.

[monkey]

I just don't get the whole "game manager" label for RW. I really don't.

Because even though he is being asked to play it safe, he still takes shots down the field, or will throw well beyond the sticks on 3rd and short with no hesitation. And many times, these decisions have paid off.

To add to your point, by percentage, he actually makes more explosive plays than any other QB in the league. He doesn't throw as much as other QB's but when he does, he's making BIG TIME throws on a very high percentage.
Again, Pete Carroll's "point guard QB" is a much better label, he's a safe ball distributor, who doesn't shoot a ton, but when he does, a very high percentage of his shots are from behind the three point arc, and are in crunch time, they are clutch shots, with time ticking off the shot clock.
Yes, he's a game manager in that he's being smart with the football rather than airing it out all game, but it's not the same dink and dunk stuff we see from a game manager in say, a west coast offense, like we see from Alex Smith for example.
I think of him as a "ball distributor" more than game manager, and the weird thing is that, the QB's Pete had in USC played the same exact way, and yet never got that game manager label for some reason. Whether it was Matt Lienert, Carson Palmer, Mark Sanchez or whoever, while at USC they all played the exact same way, and yet when they were being talked about for the draft, were all talked about as if they were free wheeling passers.
It just goes to show how little the media ACTUALLY knows about what they are talking about...not much!

[NorthHawk]

Being safe with the ball probably adds to the perception of being a Game Manager.
Considering what sticks out to those who don't pay much attention is a run first Offense with a relatively low number of passes and few turnovers.
You can understand why casual observers would think Game Manager.
And then there are those who are just trying to make him out to be less than he is.

[Eaglehawk]

I still get mad when they call him game manager, but not so much as before.

All qb's are game managers. And while I don't like the term used solely to describe him, I will accept that term used with others to describe his skills.

[HumanCockroach]

Eaglehawk, thanks. Allow me to respectfully disagree a little though

I remember that 85 Bears team, and that Superbowl quite well, and I have to disagree with your assessment about that Superbowl performance.
They rolled over a weak Patriots team, with a lousy QB, (two actually) EVERYONE expected the Bears to not just win, but destroy the Patriots. I mean, the whole country knew the Patriots were going to get blown out.
That's not a special performance, that's just taking care of business against a severely outmatched opponent.

What Seattle did this last year, against a team favored in Vegas, a team that set essentially every single season passing record that ever really mattered, the statistically greatest offense EVER, stands well above anything the Bears did.
Was the Bears defense great for that season? Yeah, but their Superbowl win was not really that special IMO, as it was completely expected. What Seattle did, beating the greatest offense ever, completely eclipses that IMO.

Also, that Superbowl shuffle was just a Johnny-come-lately thing, because the Seahawks did "The Blue Wave is on a Roll" first. The real innovators (as usual) were the Seahawks.

I understand why you feel the Hawks are the best D the SB has ever seen. They beat the best offense possibly in the history of the game. The Pats offense does not compare to the Broncos offense. I admit that.

However when you look at apples to apples stats, the Bear win out a little. The Patriots had just 12 first downs, seven rushing yards, and 116 passing yards. They also forced six turnovers in the game (four fumbles, two interceptions), and dominated time of possession by a nearly 2/1 margin. As for the Bears’ offense, they racked up 408 yards, including 167 on the ground, and saw Jim McMahon throw for 256 yards while rushing for two touchdowns in the easy victory.
As for the Seahawks, their numbers were ok, but not as good as the Bears numbers. The Broncos got 17 first downs in the game, and while they only rushed for 27 yards, Manning threw for 280 and set a Super Bowl record for most completions in a game with 34. He did throw two interceptions, including that pick six to Smith.

On the offensive side of the ball, the Seahawks were good, but not quite to the level of the Bears. Russell Wilson threw for 206 yards in the game, including two touchdowns, and also rushed for 26 yards. The Seahawks did rack up 135 yards rushing in the contest, giving them an impressive total of 341 yards of offense.
If we were just judging solely by what the Bears and Seahawks did in their respective Super Bowl victories, then the Bears would come out on top.

That's why I say the 85 Bears performed better during the SB. But, your argument is compelling as well Monkey, we beat the best offense in the history of the NFL. So why aren't we the best SB defense? That's a good argument.

Moving on to music now:

Ya gonna tell me that crackerjack song "The Blue Wave is on a Roll aka Locker Room Rock" is better than that Bears Superbowl Shuffle? (You didn't say that I am messing with you though, indulge me please).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-9AdWthjfU BTW I thought the SB shuffle was first then it was the Seahawks song and some Patriots song which was even worse, but I'll believe you on that point since I am too lazy to look it up.

Our song sounded like a cross between that song Yakity Yak and some honkey tonk Waylon Jennings song, maybe Hillbilly Fever? Which is not bad, if you are into that, but the Superbowl Shuffle just seems to have more of a beat to my ears as least.


So Monkey tell me honestly which song do you like better?

IMHO I don't think you can accurately compare "apples to apples" between the two. You can point to stats, but it was a different time ( one where defenses were allowed to intimidate receivers over the middle, be physical without drawing flags) just isn't the same. In 85' defenses were allowed to play defense, there simply wasn't a concerted effort to allow as many points as possible. I watched that defense perform in the SB, realised how pathetic that Pats offense was, and the result was as to be expected. The Pats went in to the SB with all expectation that they would get annihilated by that defense, the Hawks simply didn't. How ever you cut it, IMHO that was indeed the best single defensive performance in a SB ESPECIALLY considering that they happened to face the BEST offense to ever play in a SB).....

As for the songs, I agree the SB shuffle was better overall, but how could you skip the Jackson Sax solo. Classic. ( to be fair IMO they were all kind of lame, the Hawks was worse, especially since they certainly did not go to the SB0 LOL.

[Eaglehawk]

IMHO I don't think you can accurately compare "apples to apples" between the two. You can point to stats, but it was a different time ( one where defenses were allowed to intimidate receivers over the middle, be physical without drawing flags) just isn't the same. In 85' defenses were allowed to play defense, there simply wasn't a concerted effort to allow as many points as possible. I watched that defense perform in the SB, realised how pathetic that Pats offense was, and the result was as to be expected. The Pats went in to the SB with all expectation that they would get annihilated by that defense, the Hawks simply didn't. How ever you cut it, IMHO that was indeed the best single defensive performance in a SB ESPECIALLY considering that they happened to face the BEST offense to ever play in a SB).....

As for the songs, I agree the SB shuffle was better overall, but how could you skip the Jackson Sax solo. Classic. ( to be fair IMO they were all kind of lame, the Hawks was worse, especially since they certainly did not go to the SB0 LOL.

It was a different time, but stats are stat. The rules were different, of course. But to me still apples to apples. Rules will be different next year and the year afterwards. Can't change stats everytime the rules change. But we can change rankings and ratings with acknowledgements, based on how things were at the time.

With the new rules, it has become difficult to be a good defense. But PC has shown the league how you can still have a dominant defense while still playing within the rules.
I never looked at expectations as high as you do. Maybe I should.
From what I have seen, you make a good argument, but the Bears are the best defense I have seen play in the Superbowl.
Maybe I need to rewatch that Bears game. It has been years.

SB SHUFFLE was better. What most people did not know was that McMahon was not at the original event, but had to be "bluescreened" in at a later date. Producers did a great job. I couldn't tell at the time. Of course now I can.

[c_hawkbob]

There's nothing derogatory about "game manager". , Bob Griese was a game manager, Hass was a game manager, hell Tom freakin Brady is a Game Manager.

[Oly]

There's nothing derogatory about "game manager". , Bob Griese was a game manager, Hass was a game manager, hell Tom freakin Brady is a Game Manager.

I agree. No elite QB is poor at managing the game. It becomes derogatory, though, when it's implied that it's the only skill the QB has.

RW is an excellent game manager. It's just awesome that he also has a big time arm and is money on explosive deep plays.

[monkey]

There's nothing derogatory about "game manager". , Bob Griese was a game manager, Hass was a game manager, hell Tom freakin Brady is a Game Manager.

Good point Bob!
Comparing Tom Brady when he first got started winning Super Bowls, to Russell Wilson, and I think the comparisons between he and Wilson hold up quite well. They both fall into that game manager label (which I agree there is nothing wrong with)/ Brady's first few seasons he put up numbers VERY similar to Wilson's. They both played on well rounded teams with tough defenses that got most of the credit for their wins. They both threw a high number of touchdowns considering the few passes they threw, and did so while throwing few interceptions. And of course they both won a Superbowl in just their second seasons.

The truth about Tom Brady is that, he didn't really start winging it all over creation and putting up the huge numbers he has, until the team around him wasn't that good anymore...and not coincidentally, he hasn't won a Super Bowl since.
When he was winning Super Bowls he really was a game manager in the truest sense of that phrase, and he was darned good at it, just like Russell Wilson.

[Eaglehawk]

I'm with Oly, as long as they are referring to one aspect of his game I have no problem him being called game manager.

[c_hawkbob]

There's nothing derogatory about "game manager". , Bob Griese was a game manager, Hass was a game manager, hell Tom freakin Brady is a Game Manager.

Good point Bob!
Comparing Tom Brady when he first got started winning Super Bowls, to Russell Wilson, and I think the comparisons between he and Wilson hold up quite well. They both fall into that game manager label (which I agree there is nothing wrong with)/ Brady's first few seasons he put up numbers VERY similar to Wilson's. They both played on well rounded teams with tough defenses that got most of the credit for their wins. They both threw a high number of touchdowns considering the few passes they threw, and did so while throwing few interceptions. And of course they both won a Superbowl in just their second seasons.

The truth about Tom Brady is that, he didn't really start winging it all over creation and putting up the huge numbers he has, until the team around him wasn't that good anymore...and not coincidentally, he hasn't won a Super Bowl since.
When he was winning Super Bowls he really was a game manager in the truest sense of that phrase, and he was darned good at it, just like Russell Wilson.

Very salient point, it was, is, and will ever be about what's good for the team, not what's good for the stat geeks.

[Anthony]

There's nothing derogatory about "game manager". , Bob Griese was a game manager, Hass was a game manager, hell Tom freakin Brady is a Game Manager.

Good point Bob!
Comparing Tom Brady when he first got started winning Super Bowls, to Russell Wilson, and I think the comparisons between he and Wilson hold up quite well. They both fall into that game manager label (which I agree there is nothing wrong with)/ Brady's first few seasons he put up numbers VERY similar to Wilson's. They both played on well rounded teams with tough defenses that got most of the credit for their wins. They both threw a high number of touchdowns considering the few passes they threw, and did so while throwing few interceptions. And of course they both won a Superbowl in just their second seasons.

The truth about Tom Brady is that, he didn't really start winging it all over creation and putting up the huge numbers he has, until the team around him wasn't that good anymore...and not coincidentally, he hasn't won a Super Bowl since.
When he was winning Super Bowls he really was a game manager in the truest sense of that phrase, and he was darned good at it, just like Russell Wilson.

Partially true the Past won in 2002, 2004, 2005, Brady attempted 601 passes in 2002, 474 in 2004, 530 in 2005. Rw has not attempted more than 407 yet. Huge difference, on avg Brady is throwing the ball 135 times more a year, comparing his 3 SB years to Rw first 2. So I am not sure I would call Brady a game manager. Nor do I think Rw is.


All QBs are game managers, some better than others, what make the difference between nothing more than a game manager and more than a game manager is what they do, when they no longer have to simply manage a game, but win it, or at least give their team a chance. Dilfer was a game manager in the truest fashion. Rw is more of a QB general, he can give us what we need when we need it. You need him to manage it, he can. You need him to win it through the air, he can. You need him to win it with his legs, he can. You need him to improvise, he can. Extend plays he can. Make something out of nothing, he can. throw for 300+ yards he can. Rw can simply do whatever is needed to win, and as someone else pointed out maybe that is the best definition of Rw as a QB WINNER.

[HumanCockroach]

IMHO I don't think you can accurately compare "apples to apples" between the two. You can point to stats, but it was a different time ( one where defenses were allowed to intimidate receivers over the middle, be physical without drawing flags) just isn't the same. In 85' defenses were allowed to play defense, there simply wasn't a concerted effort to allow as many points as possible. I watched that defense perform in the SB, realised how pathetic that Pats offense was, and the result was as to be expected. The Pats went in to the SB with all expectation that they would get annihilated by that defense, the Hawks simply didn't. How ever you cut it, IMHO that was indeed the best single defensive performance in a SB ESPECIALLY considering that they happened to face the BEST offense to ever play in a SB).....

As for the songs, I agree the SB shuffle was better overall, but how could you skip the Jackson Sax solo. Classic. ( to be fair IMO they were all kind of lame, the Hawks was worse, especially since they certainly did not go to the SB0 LOL.

It was a different time, but stats are stat. The rules were different, of course. But to me still apples to apples. Rules will be different next year and the year afterwards. Can't change stats everytime the rules change. But we can change rankings and ratings with acknowledgements, based on how things were at the time.

With the new rules, it has become difficult to be a good defense. But PC has shown the league how you can still have a dominant defense while still playing within the rules.
I never looked at expectations as high as you do. Maybe I should.
From what I have seen, you make a good argument, but the Bears are the best defense I have seen play in the Superbowl.
Maybe I need to rewatch that Bears game. It has been years.

SB SHUFFLE was better. What most people did not know was that McMahon was not at the original event, but had to be "bluescreened" in at a later date. Producers did a great job. I couldn't tell at the time. Of course now I can.

Sorry Eagle, I have to disagree, stats aren't just stats, without viewing the context of when those stats are accrued, when the Bears had their heyday there simply wasn't the rules, or offenses, or thought process in place to throw the ball for 5000 plus yards a season, because defenses were allowed to play defense, the 46 d was predicated on stopping the run first and foremost, which is exactly how teams WANTED to play. IF that type of defense could be played, and played dominantly. Today, it would be, the fact is it can't, because it would be shredded. Hence you have differing success, do to numerous factors at the TIME the defense was being played.

Regardless, that Bears D was great, just don't think it can be dismissed that Seattle faced the GREATEST offense in history, in a time the rules are skewed to benefit the offense, can be compared to the Bears facing a BAD offensive team in the Pats, that wouldn't be thought of in the same universe as Denvers was. Just trusting what my eyes saw, nothing more.

[NorthHawk]

I'm not so sure this past years Broncos had the best ever Offense.
I would put the Walsh led 49ers with Montana or Young up against the Broncos because they executed so well and Walsh was real good at identifying weaknesses as well as taking advantage of opponents weaknesses.
They were also much better balanced with a good running game and very good OL.

Like what was said before, though, you can't really compare across generations so it's just my viewpoint.

[RiverDog]

Sorry Eagle, I have to disagree, stats aren't just stats, without viewing the context of when those stats are accrued, when the Bears had their heyday there simply wasn't the rules, or offenses, or thought process in place to throw the ball for 5000 plus yards a season, because defenses were allowed to play defense, the 46 d was predicated on stopping the run first and foremost, which is exactly how teams WANTED to play. IF that type of defense could be played, and played dominantly. Today, it would be, the fact is it can't, because it would be shredded. Hence you have differing success, do to numerous factors at the TIME the defense was being played.

That's why I don't like comparing teams or players from different eras. More so than any of the major professional sports, NFL football is a dynamic sport. Today's game is not the same as it was 20 years ago.

The Broncos had one of if not the best offense in this current era, and we completely destroyed them in on the biggest stage on the planet. I need no further facts to justify my bragging rights.