Game Thread: Super Bowl LVII : Chiefs vs Eagles (FOX @ 530 CT)

[Bazza]

This was the best commercial, by far......

 

[BamaMoon]

For just one game, just one. I would take a young, healthy Joe Willie. With today’s rules no one would stop him. From the time he seen a WR open till the ball was in the receiver’s hands was the quickest I have ever seen. Only Marino was close. Namath’s vision was great also.

I was too young to watch Namath at Bama and the pros, but if he was anything like Marino he was amazing. I became a Fins fan for one reason: Shula liked to draft Bama players. But I quickly learned to love Marino's style. To this day the playoff game between the Dolphins and Chargers is etched in my memory!!!

Then later in the game the Philly TE clearly bobbles a catch yet they called it a catch. I don't know what a catch is anymore.

Yeah, it's confusing, but for some reason two feet in going out of bounds is legal but a catch on the field requires possession and 3 steps. Makes no sense!

Am I the only one not in love with Chris Stapleton’s national anthem performance?

I thought it was good...but Stapleton fans probably like it more. I personally think they should just play a video of Whitney's national anthem every year and just start the game!

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

you do realize he had Tyreek and this year he had Juju. It’s far more than Kelce. He doesn’t exactly have the Patriots offense of nobodies from 14-18 in which Gronk was the only true great receiver

JuJu is a JAG. He's not some superstar. Yes he had Tyreek. Lost him and arguably got better. His only truly great WR this year was Kelce.

He may not be the greatest ever yet. But like I said IMO he's the best I've seen.

 

[81usaf92]

I disagree.

Green Bay prior to the season was being touted among the all-time great teams in the history of the NFL. They stumbled out of the gate but once they hit their stride, the shocking loss to the Colts was a HUGE story, largely because Green Bay outsmarted themselves.

Were they overrated by the press and themselves? Yes.

But the perception AT THE TIME was that the 97 Packers were gonna basically be like the 89 49ers and their only real challenge was going to be themselves. In a sense, it was the 95 Nebraska argument in reverse. They were liberally compared with the Packers teams of the 60s by pundits as well as the 70s dynasties and the 80s 49ers teams. And remember something....Green Bay had to GO ON THE ROAD to play the 49ers in the NFC Championship game despite a 13-3 record! And they manhandled the 49ers. The final was 23-10, and the 49ers' only TD came on a kickoff return with less than 4 minutes left in the game.

So I can agree with the notion that Green Bay was overrated, but that was NOT what folks thought at the time. The whole country was behind John Elway winning his ring, but I believe the Packers were something like 11-point favorites.

Green Bay only became fashionable as "overrated" after Denver won the next Super Bowl.

Pittsburgh had a better defense than Denver and a better running game overall. What got Denver in was bad kicking and Kordell’s limitations. But in the SB Elway really was basically Bob Griese and won the game behind a good defensive game in key moments and s dominating run game. My point is that the Packers were most likely going into a loss that night in San Diego despite the opponent.

 

[81usaf92]

JuJu is a JAG. He's not some superstar. Yes he had Tyreek. Lost him and arguably got better. His only truly great WR this year was Kelce.

He may not be the greatest ever yet. But like I said IMO he's the best I've seen.

Juju is not just some random receiver. He is an upper tier receiver and was the Steelers ace for years. There is a reason to why the Chiefs were aggressive in signing him after losing Hill. Is he a top tier receiver… no but he isn’t some scrub like the Patriots had from 2014-2019.

Mahomes is the best quarterback in the league now, and I enjoy watching him. But the GOAT talk is beginning to resemble the obnoxious Lebron talk that was happening in the late 2000’s. Granted Mahomes is way better at his sport than Lebron ever was but when we are already saying GOAT for a guy that hasn’t even hit the 10 year mark is premature.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Pittsburgh had a better defense than Denver and a better running game overall. What got Denver in was bad kicking and Kordell’s limitations.

Both true.

But in the SB Elway really was basically Bob Griese and won the game behind a good defensive game in key moments and s dominating run game.

Also correct.

My point is that the Packers were most likely going into a loss that night in San Diego despite the opponent.

Again - we know that NOW, although I'm not convinced Kordell Stewart was capable of winning the big one. Bear in mind that entering that game, the AFC had not won a Super Bowl in 14 years, which also led to a lot of the assumptions.

All I'm saying is it has become fashionable AFTER THE FACT to say it was obvious Green Bay would lose. It was nowhere close to obvious at the time. What's funny is that Denver, Pittsburgh AND KC were all about the same team. The Chiefs split with Denver in the regular season and edged the Steelers. They also pancaked the best team in the NFC record-wise, 44-9, at home. But those kinds of things had been happening for years only to see the NFC wipe the floor with the AFC team in the big game.

As a reminder, though, Denver DID have a good running game and defense BUT...what lost the game for Green Bay was they turned the ball over 3 times. Denver only had the ball for about 5 more minutes - and Green Bay actually ran more plays (62-61) and got more yards. The return game was essentially a wash.


I recall my Dad in the two-week span between the championship games and the SB saying, "If I'm Mike Shanahan, I give Terrell Davis the ball and I start by running right at Gilbert Brown and tire him out so bad I can punch holes in their line later."

And that's largely what they did.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I was really young when it happened but wasn't that a really close superbowl??

Yes, it was a really good game and kinda surprising at the time Denver won. Their blowout of Atlanta the next year has caused people to look back and say it was always obvious how good they were, but it wasn't obvious at the time.

Prior to the game, most folks thought we were about to get AT BEST a slightly closer Denver SB loss resembling the late 80s. We HOPED it would be an Elway win. But people also forget that Denver was VERY GOOD in 1996 - but they had that choke job against Jacksonville in the playoffs at home that defied logic.

At that time nobody thought Denver could win the big one.

 

[81usaf92]

Both true.




Also correct.



Again - we know that NOW, although I'm not convinced Kordell Stewart was capable of winning the big one. Bear in mind that entering that game, the AFC had not won a Super Bowl in 14 years, which also led to a lot of the assumptions.

All I'm saying is it has become fashionable AFTER THE FACT to say it was obvious Green Bay would lose. It was nowhere close to obvious at the time. What's funny is that Denver, Pittsburgh AND KC were all about the same team. The Chiefs split with Denver in the regular season and edged the Steelers. They also pancaked the best team in the NFC record-wise, 44-9, at home. But those kinds of things had been happening for years only to see the NFC wipe the floor with the AFC team in the big game.

As a reminder, though, Denver DID have a good running game and defense BUT...what lost the game for Green Bay was they turned the ball over 3 times. Denver only had the ball for about 5 more minutes - and Green Bay actually ran more plays (62-61) and got more yards. The return game was essentially a wash.


I recall my Dad in the two-week span between the championship games and the SB saying, "If I'm Mike Shanahan, I give Terrell Davis the ball and I start by running right at Gilbert Brown and tire him out so bad I can punch holes in their line later."

And that's largely what they did.

Maybe it came across wrong. I really think the Packers were a very good team, but they were more placeholders and not the near dynasty that Packer fans and Favre fans try to spin it. I think the betting line was absurd even if you have amnesia of how the game turned out.

At the time I did think the Packers were going to win only because I thought Denver got lucky in the AFCCG Zane wasn’t nearly as good. But I thought it was going to be a good game.

Again my point is that the Packers weren’t close to what the 49ers or Cowboys were in the 90’s like many try to spin it. Maybe I’m wrong but it’s just my feeling on it.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

Juju is not just some random receiver. He is an upper tier receiver and was the Steelers ace for years. There is a reason to why the Chiefs were aggressive in signing him after losing Hill. Is he a top tier receiver… no but he isn’t some scrub like the Patriots had from 2014-2019.

Mahomes is the best quarterback in the league now, and I enjoy watching him. But the GOAT talk is beginning to resemble the obnoxious Lebron talk that was happening in the late 2000’s. Granted Mahomes is way better at his sport than Lebron ever was but when we are already saying GOAT for a guy that hasn’t even hit the 10 year mark is premature.

JuJu was good for a bit. But I could probably name 15-20 WRs that I rather have over him off the top of my head.

Diggs
Jefferson
Hill
Adams
Kupp
Chase
Allen
Cooper
Higgins
McLaurin
Waddle
Lamb
Metcalf
St. Brown

Idk that's all I got right now but again this was completely off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

Also that's a wild Lebron comment

 

[81usaf92]

Also that's a wild Lebron comment

Lebron is great but the level that his obnoxious fans put him at is off a few levels. Imo. Agree to disagree

 

[selmaborntidefan]

BEST QBS BY YEAR SINCE THE MERGER (1970-99)

Maybe this will help. We all know the more recent ones. It's a mish-mash of yards, TDs, few INTs, and percentage. Some of these are VERY close btw. Names in bold won the SB that year.

1970 - John Brodie
1971 - Len Dawson, John Hadl, or Roger Staubach (only played part of the season)
1972 - Fran Tarkenton
1973 - Staubach (Roman Gabriel had the better year but on a 5-8-1 team)
1974 - Kenny Stabler
1975 - Tarkenton
1976 - Bert Jones
1977 - Staubach
1978 - Tarkenton/Staubach/Bradshaw (really hard to decide)
1979 - Dan Fouts
1980 - Fouts
1981 - Fouts
1982 - Fouts
1983 - Joe Theismann
1984 - Dan Marino
1985 - Marino
1986 - Marino
1987 - Joe Montana
1988 - Marino*
1989 - Montana
1990 - Montana
1991 - Jim Kelly
1992 - Steve Young
1993 - John Elway
1994 - Young
1995 - Brett Favre
1996 - Favre
1997 - Favre
1998 - Young
1999 - Kurt Warner

So.....

Marino 4
Fouts 4
Favre 3
Young 3
Tarkenton 3
Staubach 3 (??)

Whether Fouts rates top ten all-time I guess depends on your emphasis on Super Bowl wins.
But he won just as many as Marino did.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Maybe it came across wrong. I really think the Packers were a very good team, but they were more placeholders and not the near dynasty that Packer fans and Favre fans try to spin it. I think the betting line was absurd even if you have amnesia of how the game turned out.

At the time I did think the Packers were going to win only because I thought Denver got lucky in the AFCCG Zane wasn’t nearly as good. But I thought it was going to be a good game.

Again my point is that the Packers weren’t close to what the 49ers or Cowboys were in the 90’s like many try to spin it. Maybe I’m wrong but it’s just my feeling on it.

That's a fair point.

Green Bay was more like Seattle's two-year run in 2013-14 and about as successful.

As memories fade, Green Bay will be looked at as nothing more but a bridge between the 49er/Dallas/Denver/Patriot dynasties. The more teams that won 2 in a row, the less awesome they look.

I concur on that point.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

As far as an all-time list.....I think the following have to be on any list and are beyond dispute (not in order):

Tom Brady
Joe Montana
John Elway
Dan Marino
Peyton Manning
Fran Tarkenton

Let me explain the last one for those of you who say "WHAAATT?"

Tarkenton retired after the 1978 season, which was the first year the league changed the rules explicitly designed to increase passing opportunities and yardage. That year - when he was 38 years old - Tarkenton led the entire NFL in completions, attempts, and yards as well as interceptions. It was the only time he led the league in passing. But you have to understand that when Tarkenton retired, HE HELD EVERY MAJOR PASSING RECORD. And despite the fact he hasn't played in 45 years and the game is now almost exclusively passing, Tarkenton today RANKS 14TH ON THE LIST in yardage passing. Tarkenton had more career passing yards than Dan Fouts did...which if you ever saw Fouts play has you shaking your head.

How good was Tarkenton?

Compare his stats with Joe Montana - yes, Joe Montana:

1) Fran played 18 years, Joe played 15
2) Joe missed 2 1/2 seasons with injuries
3) Joe played his ENTIRE CAREER after the 1978 passing changes; Tarkenton just one year
4) Tarkenton didn't have anything close to Jerry Rice as a receiver (for those 6-7 years)

Fran - 47,003 yards, 57.0% passer, 342 TDs, 266 INT
Joe - 40,551 yards, 63.2% passer, 273 TDs, 139 INT

Now....Joe actually won only 7 fewer games and lost 62 fewer, plus he won 4 Super Bowls while Fran lost 3. I'm NOT saying Tarkenton is better than Montana. But when you're the guy who retires holding all the records and at first it takes several guys to break different ones...that's Cy Young (baseball) and Jerry Rice level AT THE TIME.

I just don't see why we punish Fran because he played during a more passing limited era (also back then, defenders could knock receivers down all over the field).

Thoughts on others
Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw played at almost the exact same time. Bradshaw played 37 more games, so basically 2.5 seasons. Staubach left some of his best years in the jungle in Vietnam serving his military commitment. All things considered, Staubach was the better QB. He beats Bradshaw badly on percentage (57 to 51.9) and while he did throw 59 fewer TDs, he also threw 101 fewer INTs. And while Staubach WAS sacked six more times - because he was actually more mobile and could keep a play going - he was sacked for 500 less yards than Bradshaw was. The simpletons will say, "Bradshaw 4 rings, Roger 2," but put Roger on that Steeler team and put Bradshaw on the Cowboys and tell me how it comes out. Both are deserving HOFers, but I'd rate Roger the better QB (and I despise Dallas).

Bart Starr and Joe Namath - the Alabama Super Bowl-winning QBs of the first three championship games, Starr got better as his career went on, but how much Green Bay needed him to pass is open to question. Namath had one of the all-time years in 1968, but knee injuries did him in. I just don't think you'd take Starr over Johnny Unitas, who played only 15 more games in his career but completed over 1,000 more passes, over 16,000 more yards, and nearly double the TD output. I would probably put Unitas on my Top Ten list.

Dan Fouts and Ken Stabler - now I'm gonna get controversial although some of you may remember the commercial. For a four-year period (1979-82), Fouts was the best QB in the NFL. He led the league in yards all 4 years - and by margins that increased from 300 yards the first year to 600 the second and 900 the third...the 4th was the strike year. He got hurt and missed nearly 1/2 the season the next year - and then Dan Marino showed up and Fouts looked like just another QB even though he was near the top of the league. Stabler, of course, won Super Bowl XI, but their career numbers are only similar in two aspects, games and percentage.

Fouts - 181 games, 58.8%, 43,040 yards, 254/242
Stabler - 184 games, 59.8%, 27,938 yards, 194/222

Fouts is a no doubt HOFer, Stabler is a defensible choice at best, not thoroughly unqualfied and not an all-time great, either. (Don't be misled by the yardage numbers; Stabler played three extra years under the old rules that favored defenders while Fouts played three extra years under the rules favoring the receivers). If Fouts could have: a) won a Super Bowl or two (he lost 2 AFC title games because the Chargers were as Defense Optional as the Sooners); or b) had 3 more years like his blistering years leading the league, he'd be in the Marino category.

Brett Favre - I just don't know what to do with this guy. Was he the best QB of the 1990s? Probably. His 1995-98 is SIMILAR to Fouts though not quite as dominant. But my problem with Favre is his utter recklessness in key situations in the post-season. Fouts lost chances at Super Bowls because of his defense; Favre lost chances at Super Bowls BECAUSE HE GOT STUPID!!! Favre MIGHT be the best QB between the Montana/Elway Era and Brady, but his stupid interceptions at key game-changing moments - 2003 vs the Eagles, 2007 vs the Giants, 2009 vs the Saints - I'm sorry, he's got the stats, but I can't give him the mantle of greatness with his poor decision-making under pressure. I just can't.

Favre has the stats - but made horrendous decisions in big games.
Bradshaw has much lesser stats - but made GOOD decisions in big games.

Jim Kelly - I don't quite think he makes the list. Sadly, his career is viewed through four Super Bowl losses, and as I noted earlier, his numbers are cut a tad because of his USFL years.

Kurt Warner - let's be honest here: two plays going his way in two Super Bowl games and Warner would be in the Top Ten, plain and simple. Prior to the 2017 Super Bowl, Warner had the three greatest passing yardage performances in a Super Bowl, two with the Greatest Show on Turf and one with the Arizona Cardinals (I STILL can't believe this). Warner, too, is missing a few years on the front of his career when he lacked opportunity. He was in camp with Brett Favre at the time Favre was beginning his run. But as a reminder - Warner WENT TO more Super Bowls than Favre and WON just as many. If Warner had: a) had an earlier opportunity; or b) not gotten injured as often as he later did - there would be a case for him for the Top Ten. Warner was a much better percentage passer than Favre (65.5 to 62) and threw for .8 more yards per attempt despite some of those years being with mediocre Giants and Cardinals teams.

So I'd say the six I have listed above and Unitas would be 7 of my top ten. (I may be forced to include Favre, ugh!).

But I'd probably take Staubach as well.

Just wanted to chime in on Elway as a Broncos fan

It warms my heart that most people acknowledge that he's a Top 5 - Top 10 QB All-Time.

I became a fan very young... like around 4-5 in 1982-83 and he was like a Hero to me then.

I basically viewed him as like a John Wayne Cowboy Gunslinger type of guy playing QB.

Winning those Back-to-Back Super Bowls in the late 90s was SUPER Cathartic.

My friends made fun of me for being a fan because of the 80s Super Bowl losses and because most of them were either Saints or Falcons fans.

Oh and both of those late 90s Championship seasons Elway had Pro-Bowl seasons in his late 30s in the sunset of his career.

He had a rough SB 32 and Terrell Davis was absolutely the MVP of that game but you gotta admit the Helicopter Dive on 3rd and 6 is Iconic as is gets. That play is the type of stuff John did he entire career with his legs and in the CLUTCH.

He played much better in SB 33 though and he did deserve the MVP in that one...and it was extra sweet for me because we stuck it to the Falcons and it shut up my Falcons friends. ( I would have never heard the end of it if we lost that one...lol)

Oh and I 1000% agree with your entire post Selma.

The only thing I would add is that while I wouldn't have Jim Kelly in the Top 10, I do think he's close...like somewhere around 10-15. Though I admit I am factoring in that I think he would have put up a lot higher numbers overall if he only plays in the NFL for his entire Pro career.

 

[CoachJeff]

To me, Favre was better than Elway, but I can see why people downgrade Favre. Dude threw a LOT of really dumb INTS. Some of the greatest arm talent ever and it led to him thinking he could fit the ball into all sorts of spaces he had no business trying to throw into. Makes for some of the greatest highlights ever, but you'd have to ignore all the bad turnovers - he had the most fumbles of anyone in NFL history too. Looking back at the stats I was surprised just how many INTs he threw.

Aaron Rodgers has 105 INTs in 7660 attempts. Favre had 336 INTs in 10169 attempts. That's why Rodgers has a career QB rating of 103.6 while Favre's was 86.0. Rodgers could throw something like 200 straight INTs and still have a better QB rating than Favre.

 

[TideEngineer08]

To me, Favre was better than Elway, but I can see why people downgrade Favre. Dude threw a LOT of really dumb INTS. Some of the greatest arm talent ever and it led to him thinking he could fit the ball into all sorts of spaces he had no business trying to throw into. Makes for some of the greatest highlights ever, but you'd have to ignore all the bad turnovers - he had the most fumbles of anyone in NFL history too. Looking back at the stats I was surprised just how many INTs he threw.

Aaron Rodgers has 105 INTs in 7660 attempts. Favre had 336 INTs in 10169 attempts. That's why Rodgers has a career QB rating of 103.6 while Favre's was 86.0. Rodgers could throw something like 200 straight INTs and still have a better QB rating than Favre.

Yeah that one to end regulation in the NFC championship in 2009 vs. New Orleans was egregious.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

This was the best commercial, by far......

Great commercial! That dog lived a very long time...

IMO, most of the commercials this year were really stupid...

 

[Bamabuzzard]

To me, Favre was better than Elway, but I can see why people downgrade Favre. Dude threw a LOT of really dumb INTS. Some of the greatest arm talent ever and it led to him thinking he could fit the ball into all sorts of spaces he had no business trying to throw into. Makes for some of the greatest highlights ever, but you'd have to ignore all the bad turnovers - he had the most fumbles of anyone in NFL history too. Looking back at the stats I was surprised just how many INTs he threw.

Aaron Rodgers has 105 INTs in 7660 attempts. Favre had 336 INTs in 10169 attempts. That's why Rodgers has a career QB rating of 103.6 while Favre's was 86.0. Rodgers could throw something like 200 straight INTs and still have a better QB rating than Favre.

And the crazy thing is they both only have 1 SB ring. It's still a team game and a lot of things still have to go "your way" even for the best of teams to win.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Joe Namath - what's often forgotten since his numbers nowadays look pedestrian otherwise is that Namath actually led the league in passing yards THREE TIMES in his first eight years as a starter. Of course, he also led the league in INTs four times, partly because he played pre-1978.

The reason I just can't warm up to him as a Top Ten QB is because look at the ten guys with similar careers adjusted for time. TWO of them - Stabler and Aikman - are in the Hall, but the rest are guys like Steve Grogan, McNair, Jim Everett, Theismann, Tony Romo, Alex Smith, and McNabb. So he ranks with two of the lower end Hall guys at best and a bunch of guys who were serviceable and decent QBs for awhile but none was superstar caliber. Of course, Namath is in the Gale Sayers category, too, of 'Yeah he did a bit but what would he have done if not for the knees?" And YES, he's in the Hall because you absolutely cannot tell the story of the NFL without Super Bowl 3, so I'm okay with that.

Don't let the "boy those numbers look bad" fool you. Virtually every QB who had a long career in the 60s had more INTs than they did TDs- again - because you could knock receivers down all over the field and offensive lineman were limited to what they could do to block a guy on a passing play.

Consider some of Namath's contemporaries:
Jack Kemp - 114/183, 46.7%
George Blanda - 236/277, 47.7%
John Hadl - 244/268, 50.4%
Babe Parilli - 178/220, 46.6%

Other guys like Tom Flores or Daryle Lamonica were right there with about the same number of picks as TDs. The only guys with long careers who REALLY stand out are Unitas and Len Dawson. One of the best all-around athletes - and yes, it would be interesting to see his numbers in a 17-game season with modern passing rules and medicine.

Troy Aikman - yeah, 3 rings, and a couple of good seasons...but Dallas would have traded him for Steve Young in a heartbeat just like they would have traded Emmitt for Barry Sanders and never flinched. The Cowboys of the 90s were the Beatles of NFL teams - the whole was greater than the sum of the parts (same as the second Patriots run).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The only thing I would add is that while I wouldn't have Jim Kelly in the Top 10, I do think he's close...like somewhere around 10-15. Though I admit I am factoring in that I think he would have put up a lot higher numbers overall if he only plays in the NFL for his entire Pro career.

Yeah, that's what I said as well.

Jim Kelly - I don't quite think he makes the list. Sadly, his career is viewed through four Super Bowl losses, and as I noted earlier, his numbers are cut a tad because of his USFL years.

Right now, though I still have to come up with 3 more QBs and figure out where Mahomes is.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Tom Brady
Joe Montana
John Elway
Dan Marino
Peyton Manning
Fran Tarkenton
Johnny Unitas
Aaron Rodgers

I'm comfortable with those eight.