ChiefsPlanet
Page 37 of 55 « First 2733343536 37 3839404147 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs What's with the Thigpen fixation? (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=202158)

dirk digler 02-10-2009 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5478156)
They were ranked 6th in 2001, 1st in 2003, 2nd in 2004 and 4th in 2007.
There you go. I actually thought their 2001 team was alot worse defensively.

So that goes back to my question is Brady lucky to have a great D like Ben?

My answer would be no because you have to have a very good D to win a SB along with (usually) a very good to great QB.

doomy3 02-10-2009 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smed1065 (Post 5478155)
I like BB but they asked if the SB rings were because of defense,

No, 1 was because of him but not both wins and they stated based on the run game and did not mention maybe a defense-LOL

Based on BB alone was the reason because either QB could not be a bust?

Kneel to them cause they are the only one that matters. If you disagree the smiley comes out or WTF.

They suggested no running game because of this years stats and applied it to all SB big bens wins of the SB.

Humm. No. IMO.
:spock:

Wha?

Sam Hall 02-10-2009 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5478158)
Yeah, but DUDE, they've had a Top Ten defense since 1993. They didn't win a Super Bowl until the year after Ben was drafted.

Clearly, his addition put them over the top.
It takes both to win a Super Bowl. Ben is one of the league's best, but I think you're making him look better than he is.

doomy3 02-10-2009 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5478169)
Brees would have been absolutely crushed and probably on IR behind the Steeler's line.

Ben is 6'5, 250. Played through a ton of injuries (shoulder and ribs). Brees is tiny in comparison and would have never made it through the season.
Yeah, that's likely. Of course he makes much quicker reads than Ben and wouldn't take the needless punishment he does either.

dirk digler 02-10-2009 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5478166)
Different offensive styles. The patriots have been passing oriented their whole run, more of an attacking unit. Brady's been asked to do completely different things.

That's part of the reason I like the Haley hire, because we'll (hopefully) be more like new england offensively than pittsburgh. I'm not a big fan of the 'win by attrition' approach. I want to attack on both sides of the ball.
True except for maybe their first SB where they ran a very conventional offense and ran alot more than they do now.

DaneMcCloud 02-10-2009 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5478176)
It takes both to win a Super Bowl. Ben is one of the league's best, but I think you're making him look better than he is.
Then Pittsburgh would have made it to the Super Bowl in 1994, should have won in 1995, should have made it in 1998 and so on and so forth.

Their defense has always been great. The difference has been Rothlisberger.

I don't even know how this could be argued.

Smed1065 02-10-2009 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5478164)
This is the most obtuse post I've ever seen.

Is it just me? I'm tired, admittedly.

They's and BB's...
BB is Big Ben...

I was just saying that BB was not responsible for the first SB win?

DeezNutz 02-10-2009 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smed1065 (Post 5478185)
BB is Big Ben...

I was just saying that BB was not responsible for the first SB win?
Gotcha.

I understand, now.

keg in kc 02-10-2009 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doomy3 (Post 5478178)
Yeah, that's likely. Of course he makes much quicker reads than Ben and wouldn't take the needless punishment he does either.
I don't think he'd have time to make even quick reads. That line was really bad, particularly for a championship team. I can't think of another team that won with anything even approaching as porous a unit.

Smed1065 02-10-2009 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5478184)
Then Pittsburgh would have made it to the Super Bowl in 1994, should have won in 1995, should have made it in 1998 and so on and so forth.

Their defense has always been great. The difference has been Rothlisberger.

I don't even know how this could be argued.
I agree this year but you stated the running game has sucked every since BB had been there and it was all BB for winning?

See 2 SB rings for BB.

doomy3 02-10-2009 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5478192)
I don't think he'd have time to make even quick reads. That line was really bad, particularly for a championship team. I can't think of another team that won with anything even approaching as porous a unit.
Yeah, it was terrible. Ben's size definitely helps him, and he probably is the only guy that could take that punishment.

He definitely held onto the ball too long though consistently. And, his line also came through when it counted FWIW. He pump faked 3 times on the game winning TD to Santonio.

Sam Hall 02-10-2009 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5478184)
Then Pittsburgh would have made it to the Super Bowl in 1994, should have won in 1995, should have made it in 1998 and so on and so forth.

Their defense has always been great. The difference has been Rothlisberger.

I don't even know how this could be argued.
I just think their defense is more important. I like Big Ben.

DaneMcCloud 02-10-2009 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smed1065 (Post 5478194)
I agree this year but you stated the running game has sucked every since BB had been there and it was all BB for winning?

See 2 SB rings for BB.
No, I did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5478014)
So yeah, I'll take Big Ben any day of the week. And apparently, you've never watched Pittsburgh because for one, their offensive line is worse than the Chiefs and two, their running game isn't much to speak.

Yet all Ben does is will them to wins.

Smed1065 02-10-2009 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5478164)
This is the most obtuse post I've ever seen.

Is it just me? I'm tired, admittedly.

They's and BB's...
BB is Big Ben...

I was just saying that BB was not responsible for the first SB win?

See (I like BB but they asked if the SB rings were because of defense,

No, 1 was because of him but not both wins and they stated based on the run game and did not mention maybe a defense-LOL

Based on BB alone was the reason because either QB could not be a bust?

Kneel to them cause they are the only one that matters. If you disagree the smiley comes out or WTF.

They suggested no running game because of this years stats and applied it to all SB big bens wins of the SB.

Humm. No. IMO.)

keg in kc 02-10-2009 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smed1065 (Post 5478194)
I agree this year but you stated the running game has sucked every since BB had been there and it was all BB for winning?
I may be wrong, but my recollection is that they're usually in the top-5 rushing, and this year was an aberration.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:13 PM.
Page 37 of 55 « First 2733343536 37 3839404147 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.