• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

You have $15 to make an all-time NFL starting offensive lineup.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
darkewaffle said:
I'm surprised everyone's complaining about RBs and not QBs (or Brady above Manning lol).
Click to expand...


I put Brady above Manning. Manning is good but chokes to much under pressure. He's good but I think Brady does more with less and performs better under pressure.
 
Jimzz said:
I put Brady above Manning. Manning is good but chokes to much under pressure. He's good but I think Brady does more with less and performs better under pressure.
Click to expand...

He didn't choke in the SB, the rest of his team pretty much screwed him over.
 
angminas said:
I loved TD, but he benefitted greatly from Elway, Sharpe, Rod Smith, Alex Gibbs, etc. The Broncos were the top team in the NFL during his peak. Sanders, on the other hand, had little help and had to run for his life every time he touched the ball. And STILL retired with legs.
Click to expand...


TD did benefit a great deal from the talent around him, and a great line/blocking scheme. There were a few years where you'd draft whoever the Broncos RB was in a fantasy draft. They'd get 10 TDs and 1200 yards pretty reliably.

But don't think Sanders did it all on his own. The QB (Scott Mitchell or whoever) on those teams was generally weak, but the line wasn't bad at all. Plus, Herman Moore was a great WR.
 
smackababy said:
Pretty much everyone. That is how you determine success in the NFL. Same with every other sport.



Two ints and a safety. Manning shit the bed, again.
Click to expand...

You must watch a lot of talking head garbage on espn, this is the type of bullshit they constantly spew.

The fact is, it's a team sport. There are 21 other players out on the field at any given time, and all of them have an impact on the outcome.
 
Kev said:
He didn't choke in the SB, the rest of his team pretty much screwed him over.
Click to expand...


2 INTs from a seasoned Vet and the only TD was after Seattle pulled some of its starters.
Yes its a team sport but he choked, its that simple.

In both of Bradys SB loses combined he only gave up 1 INT and that was after trying to force it due to time/score issues.
 
Jimzz said:
2 INTs from a seasoned Vet and the only TD was after Seattle pulled some of its starters.
Yes its a team sport but he choked, its that simple.

In both of Bradys SB loses combined he only gave up 1 INT and that was after trying to force it due to time/score issues.
Click to expand...

He's a 5x MVP of the league. But he lost 2 Super Bowl games. Obviously a choker.

I wonder what Manning would have done with Belicheck as his coach for his entire career...
 
Even as a Broncos fan, I have to agree that Brady seems to be slightly better than Manning. Though Manning is the best current quarterback we could have gotten at Denver, possibly the best quarterback we've ever had. (Though Elway was clutch.)

To the OP's question:

$4 Tom Brady
$2 Adrian Peterson - TD was great, but AP carried his whole team. One wonders what he could do on a good team.
$5 Jerry Rice - QB is nothing without a great receiver.
$1 Larry Allen - With a hurry-up offense, which I prefer, the OL doesn't mean as much.
$3 Shannon Sharpe - Another great receiver - if he can avoid penalties with his mouth.
 
Kev said:
He's a 5x MVP of the league. But he lost 2 Super Bowl games. Obviously a choker.

I wonder what Manning would have done with Belicheck as his coach for his entire career...
Click to expand...

He's basically been his own coach and offensive coordinator.

I think the pressure of game planning for a Superbowl and ALSO playing in it, is too much for him, or anybody to handle. Which is why his performance in the three Superbowls has been much worse than the rest of his career.

Giving the game planning and coordinating load to somebody with a great mind like Belicheck would make his life a lot easier I think.
 
QB
$1 Steve Young

RB
$2 Adrian Peterson
$1 Terrell Davis

WR

$4 Randy Moss
$3 Larry Fitzgerald
$2 Terrell Owens
$1 Chris Carter

OL
$1 Larry Allen


We don't need no stinking tight ends, if we have 4 outstanding wide receivers and two big running backs in the backfield who are capable of throwing a block. Play only 4 or 5 of the six WR/RB at a time, allowing for enough linemen.
 
smackababy said:
I'd take Bo Jackson over any of those RBs.

And besides that, list is stupid. Emmitt Smith isn't on the RB list? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Emmitt is not even close. All the RB's listed are better. Plus Tomlinson, Faulk, Sayers, OJ (2k in 14 games!) Campbell, Dickerson

I'd take any of those before even considering Smith
 
chitwood said:
Emmitt is not even close. All the RB's listed are better. Plus Tomlinson, Faulk, Sayers, OJ (2k in 14 games!) Campbell, Dickerson

I'd take any of those before even considering Smith
Click to expand...

Emmitt Smith averaged (over 15 years) 1223 yards per year, that is counting the awful Arizona years. And, he had the durability. He had north / south rushing ability, good blocking, and was a good receiver. TD doesn't even deserve to be on that list. He was good, for 4 seasons. He never played a full season after that.
 
momeNt said:
I'm talking about when analyzing individual performances. Baseball it is extremely easy to do so. You just avoid looking at the stats that are loaded with circumstantial information, pitching win/loss, RBI, runs, etc. and focus on the ones that matter. weighted on base average, ERA. etc.

You can look at these stats at the end of a season, and really have the best idea of any sport, who was the best individual player in a specific category. Because baseball stats allow you to peel away the team aspects the game that maybe impair the judgment of individual performance. You simply can't do that in football or basketball.

edit: going back to what I initially said in your WTF ever. I really don't see how I'm wrong. Please explain how other players on the baseball field make it difficult to analyze the performance of one specific player.
Click to expand...

Players get way better hitting opportunities with better teams. Hitting with a man on first is way easier than hitting with bases empty. More RBI chances, more sac fly chances with runners on third. If you have a dominant lineup you're more likely to get better pitches to hit. If you have a better team, you feed more off of the teammates and learn more from the better players. If you're pitching is dominant, opposing teams wont necessarily always put their best reliever in, especially if your team is up a lot. Facing Mariano Rivera in the 9th because your team is down by 1 is a hell of a lot tougher than facing some scrub put in the burn innings when your team is up by 5. The list goes on...

And I didn't say that you couldn't analyze the performance of a specific player. But in regards to "Performance is a function of everybody else on the field really. In baseball its basically nonexistant", well that's just not true at all. Maybe less than other sports, but maybe more than most think. A clutch player is going to play way better in a playoff hunt when adrenaline is pumping than when their team is 10 games out of first.
 
Last edited:
I would have no problem taking the $5 teams against the $25 team.

Carter is no Rice and Newsome is no Gonzalez, but, still, the difference is so small, it hardly seems worth the extra $4 each.

MotionMan
 
TallBill said:
Players get way better hitting opportunities with better teams. Hitting with a man on first is way easier than hitting with bases empty. More RBI chances, more sac fly chances with runners on third. If you have a dominant lineup you're more likely to get better pitches to hit. If you have a better team, you feed more off of the teammates and learn more from the better players. If you're pitching is dominant, opposing teams wont necessarily always put their best reliever in, especially if your team is up a lot. Facing Mariano Rivera in the 9th because your team is down by 1 is a hell of a lot tougher than facing some scrub put in the burn innings when your team is up by 5. The list goes on...

And I didn't say that you couldn't analyze the performance of a specific player. But in regards to "Performance is a function of everybody else on the field really. In baseball its basically nonexistant", well that's just not true at all. Maybe less than other sports, but maybe more than most think. A clutch player is going to play way better in a playoff hunt when adrenaline is pumping than when their team is 10 games out of first.
Click to expand...

You sound like a complete sabermetrics denier. Am I getting this right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top