This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You get credit for the good and take no blame for the bad. Does anyone remember the three and outs in consecutive years for the 49ers when Joe Montana was 29, 30, and 31? San Fran lost those games 17-3, 49-3, and 36-24. Joe Cool threw 0 TD and 4 INT combined in those games with passer ratings of 65, 34, and 42. But, but, but . . . he went 4-0 in Super Bowls!!!! Best. QB. Ever!!!!!!
I have blocked those memories. Joe Montana was the greatest ever & it diminishes the HOF to include Eli along side him.
Just a little Context. The 49-3 game was against the SB Champ Giants with LT and coached by Parcells and Belichick. The 17-3 was also against the Giants again with LT, Parcells and Belichick. I would say that the 36-24 loss by the 10-2 (non-scab) 49ers to the 8-4 (non-scab) Vikings is the only one that is clearly a bad loss based on who they were playing.Anarchy99 said:
Which brings us to a different question. What constitutes a great defense? The 85 Giants ranked 5th in points allowed at 17.7 ppg (85 points behind the Bears). The 86 Giants ranked second and allowed 14.8 ppg (almost 50 points behind the Bears). On average, teams scored 20.5 ppg in 1986.
I think of that Giant's defense as a great defense even though statistically they don't stand out as much as some others. LT was such a disruptive force, and obviously Parcells and Belichick know a little bit about coaching defense. The fact that those Giants teams won 2 SB's is largely due to the defense, and the offense doing just enough to win. Conversely, I think the Patriots this year are having a great statistical year but are not nearly the disruptive force that that Giants defense was. Let's face it, this is a year when due to luck, the schedules are very uneven. Some teams have had a very easy schedule, some have had a very hard schedule. The NFC east is terrible, as a whole, the bottom of the AFC east (Jets and Dolphins) are terrible, the Bengals are terrible. While the Bills are 10-4 their two wins against teams with a winning record are against the Titans (with Mariotta) and the Steelers, both of whom are just 8-6. So the Patriots have had a very favorable schedule. When they have played good teams with intact offenses (Baltimore, Houston, KC) They have given up 29 points per game. So while I think the Patriots have a really good defense, I haven't seen enough to say they are an all-time great defense.
Seriously?at the notion that the baseball HOF has stricter standards than the PFHOF.
We'll see when the season is over how things shape up. Getting back to the Giants, in 1985, they allowed 21 or more points 7 times . . . and lost everyone of those games. They gave up 35 to CLE (9-9) and another 35 to CIN (7-9). I don't really consider that version of the Giants defense all that intimidating.
True. Let's ask this. Aside from those 2 runs, did he ever do anything in his career that was worthy of the HoF? Did you ever watch him play and think, wow, he's one of the greats? Hell, any season he played was he even considered a top 5 QB in the league? Top 10? Even during those runs, who watched him and thought he was the reason they got there and won? Yes, we can point out any player who had bad moments/seasons, but they had so much good to counter it, it's what makes them HoFers...what did Eli do that was so great to counter his mediocre stats and play? Two lucky, fluky runs in the playoffs riding a great defense? No thanks.
Like I said, I haven't seen enough to call them an all-time great defense. Like you said, the season is not over yet.
In the last 10 years, these players have been inducted into the MLB HOF:
I concede the point and I stand corrected. Those players are pretty comparable to Eli. Casuals think they were all really good.
Most of those baseball players on that list went in via Veterans Committee i.e. they were passed over repeatedly by regular HOF voters.
Half of the list got voted in through the regular voting process. Raines, Mussina, Hoffman, Dawson, and Blyleven got in that way.
I'm not familiar with the voting process between the two sports, but if they are different, it's like apples to oranges and you cannot compare the two. If one is voting players in from votes of previous players and the other one isn't, then you can't compare the players from the two sports.
