Anyone watch the ultimate super bowl team

[Sean Pa Patriot]

No one on offense made it, and Lombardi was the coach ,hard to argue..I did not see the defense , and I dont know If Adam made it.. I did not watch the whole show on ESPN, so Is it worth watching it again... By the way they added 1 person, and that person was Emmit Smith....

 

[abejarano12]

I didn't catch it all,but I think the only one of our guys to make was Adam. But I 'm not sure. I know one thing if he didn't they should just do away with the whole list

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I too saw only part of it. The way they presented appeared to be in reverse order from those considered leading up to those named, so it appeared Tommy was just behind Bradshaw as the backup and Montana as the starter. Also appeared that BB was right behind Lombardi as HC. I imagine they will have it listed on the web site.

It was almost worth watching just to see ESPN and the media naming an offensive squad for which Manning was not even eligible.

 

[Fanfrom1960]

I didn't catch it all,but I think the only one of our guys to make was Adam. But I 'm not sure. I know one thing if he didn't they should just do away with the whole list

Vinatieri was the placekicker. Brady, Branch, Bruschi, Law and Belichick were "honorable mentions".

 

[BelichickFan]

It was almost worth watching just to see ESPN and the media naming an offensive squad for which Manning was not even eligible.

That shouldn't have stopped them, Manning still should have gotten an Honorable Mention - for the family name is nothing else

 

[Fanfrom1960]

I too saw only part of it. The way they presented appeared to be in reverse order from those considered leading up to those named, so it appeared Tommy was just behind Bradshaw as the backup and Montana as the starter. Also appeared that BB was right behind Lombardi as HC. I imagine they will have it listed on the web site.

It was almost worth watching just to see ESPN and the media naming an offensive squad for which Manning was not even eligible.

Before naming Bradshaw as backup and Montana as the starter, they mentioned the QBs by order of increasing number of SB wins, so it went a few guys with one, then Starr, Elway, then Aikman, Brady and then Bradshaw and Montana. Same with HC, so Bill W and Bill B were mentioned right before Lombardi.

Edit: forgot coach Chuck Noll (4).

 

[Fanfrom1960]

That shouldn't have stopped them, Manning still should have gotten an Honorable Mention - for the family name is nothing else

So far, the super bowl is "Manning free". :woohoo:

 

[abejarano12]

I have to disagree Lombardi is the man on this one. He won the frist two Super Bowls and has the trophy named after him. However I could have Belichick on Defense and Bill Walsh as Offense.

But the Head Coach is Lombardi

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

I have to disagree Lombardi is the man on this one. He won the frist two Super Bowls and has the trophy named after him. However I could have Belichick on Defense and Bill Walsh as Offense.

But the Head Coach is Lombardi

Gotta agree with NEM here.

If you were stark naked, dangling over the toasty-hot fires of Hell, staring Satan himself in the face, and had to chose between Lombardi or Belichick to plan and manage ONE football game to save your soul from eternal damnation engulfed in flame with Adolph Hitler as your arse-raping bunk mate? Who would you choose?

Me? Belichick, hands down, without a moments thought, regardless of how much I appreciate and revel in the legendary greatness that is Lombardi.

Be honest now.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I disagree with the choice of Lombardi over Belichick. In Lombardi's day, he didnt have free agency to put up with, to mold in new players all the time. He didnt have to sit through 32 picks in each round of the draft before he got a new player, either.

Belichick had many more obstacles for him to get around to produce his winners... and he even came witin a game or two of doing it again this season....

Lombardi over Belichick? NO WAY/////////////////////////

I agree but hey that Espn for you

 

[jeffd]

I disagree with the choice of Lombardi over Belichick. In Lombardi's day, he didnt have free agency to put up with, to mold in new players all the time. He didnt have to sit through 32 picks in each round of the draft before he got a new player, either.

Belichick had many more obstacles for him to get around to produce his winners... and he even came witin a game or two of doing it again this season....

Lombardi over Belichick? NO WAY/////////////////////////

Apples and oranges. Football was a different game back then. I absolutely agree that the game is more difficult to manage now (FA, salary cap, attitude of players, much deeper strategy), but Lombardi didn't have FA to build his team he relied on the draft, he didn't have 85 assistance and technology to help game plan. I'm not making an argument either I'm just saying they were both the best at what they did. What they did was different.

 

[patriotsrule]

Apples and oranges. Football was a different game back then. I absolutely agree that the game is more difficult to manage now (FA, salary cap, attitude of players, much deeper strategy), but Lombardi didn't have FA to build his team he relied on the draft, he didn't have 85 assistance and technology to help game plan. I'm not making an argument either I'm just saying they were both the best at what they did. What they did was different.

Belichick failed in Cleveland, was 5-11 his first year here, 0-2 the second year and then enter Tom Brady. Maybe Brady should be the coach. To say this coach or that coach had it easier is garbage. I could easily argue the NFL - with all its teams - is a much easier league today than it was back then. Have you ever seen the talent on the Cowboys team the Steelers beat twice in the Super Bowl? Those guys were pretty good too.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Vinatieri was the placekicker. Brady, Branch, Bruschi, Law and Belichick were "honorable mentions".

What, no Rodney, no Vrabes, no Willie as even honorable mention. All these guys had big SB games.

Did we just get "Belidised" or what?

 

[shmessy]

Belichick failed in Cleveland, was 5-11 his first year here, 0-2 the second year and then enter Tom Brady. Maybe Brady should be the coach. To say this coach or that coach had it easier is garbage. I could easily argue the NFL - with all its teams - is a much easier league today than it was back then. Have you ever seen the talent on the Cowboys team the Steelers beat twice in the Super Bowl? Those guys were pretty good too.

You're missing the point of the specific TV program.

It is based on lifetime Super Bowl performance.

Regular season, pre-season, bedroom, etc. performance means didly in this case.

 

[Fanfrom1960]

You're missing the point of the specific TV program.

It is based on lifetime Super Bowl performance.

Regular season, pre-season, bedroom, etc. performance means didly in this case.

Exactly. One of the writers Berman had there that covered all 39 SBs to date made a strong case for Timmy Smith to be one of the starting running backs because he set the rushing record for a single super bowl with 204 yards in SB22. Smith had a nothing career except for that game. I thought Marcus Allen should have been one of the RBs. They had Csonka, Harris and Riggins.