COLTS

["THE" MoSav]

Could you atleast show me some stats that say he threw two INTs? Both Fox Sports ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/69814 ) and Pro-Football reference ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MannPe00.htm ) show know INTs thrown by Manning against the Steelers. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying both my memory and htese websites are in agreement. Could you show me a site or sourxe that shows the INTS. You don't need to write essays, but I asked a question and you didn't answer so I figured you may not have had one.

I think the Pats offense can easily be compared to the Colts. NE would get as much yards rushing among there rotating backs, and in 2004 Dillon had more yards than James. I don't need stats to show that the NE O-Line is far better than Indy's. BRady may not put uup the same numbers as Manning but the passing yards are still very high.

I didn't mention Brady because I didn't mention any player. If I were to mention players I'd put guys like Harrison, Seymour and Izzo above Brady. Like I showed, NE could win an AFC conference game with out Brady.

I think the biggest diffrence between the Colts and Pats offense would be that the Pats throw shorter passes and dont have the big play capability of the Colts, wouldnt you agree? Plus the Colts could never run the ball like the Pats. But they have 2 different style of offenses that are perfect for each qb!

[Shallow]

For the record I have no desire in getting you to say Manning is better than BRady. To each his own. I'm just expressing my opinions on football.

Could you atleast show me some stats that say he threw two INTs? Both Fox Sports ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/69814 ) and Pro-Football reference ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MannPe00.htm ) show know INTs thrown by Manning against the Steelers. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying both my memory and htese websites are in agreement. Could you show me a site or sourxe that shows the INTS. You don't need to write essays, but I asked a question and you didn't answer so I figured you may not have had one.

I think the Pats offense can easily be compared to the Colts. NE would get as much yards rushing among there rotating backs, and in 2004 Dillon had more yards than James. I don't need stats to show that the NE O-Line is far better than Indy's. BRady may not put uup the same numbers as Manning but the passing yards are still very high.

I didn't mention Brady because I didn't mention any player. If I were to mention players I'd put guys like Harrison, Seymour and Izzo above Brady. Like I showed, NE could win an AFC conference game with out Brady.

I think the biggest diffrence between the Colts and Pats offense would be that the Pats throw shorter passes and dont have the big play capability of the Colts, wouldnt you agree? Plus the Colts could never run the ball like the Pats. But they have 2 different style of offenses that are perfect for each qb!

I agree that the offenses are different. I just meant that if I had to choose between offenses I wouldn't mind getting stuck with the Pats if the Colts were taken. But I'd avoid the Colts D a lot more than I would the Pats D. It's a very different system in both teams. Belichick works with a system that relies on the defense to keep the game in control and a very well paced offense. While the Colts rely on an offense to put up points early and force the other team to take chances. When the Colts don't put up two or three TDs right away they have a hard time. Sometimes they step up in the 4th and win, and sometimes they don't. With NE style they are more consistent because it's a much more practical system, and I greatly would have preferred if Indy had spent the last 6 years building a Defense that you can work around like that. Bob Sanders is a good start but it should have started years ago. It's less likely for a power defense and strong O-line pushing offense to break down than it is for a speed defense and gunslinging offense to break down. I can only imagine what would have happened if the Ravens had lost a few more games in '97 and picked up Manning in '98. He would have had atleast 1 Superbowl ring for sure, maybe 2 or 3.

["THE" MoSav]

For the record I have no desire in getting you to say Manning is better than BRady. To each his own. I'm just expressing my opinions on football.

Could you atleast show me some stats that say he threw two INTs? Both Fox Sports ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/69814 ) and Pro-Football reference ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MannPe00.htm ) show know INTs thrown by Manning against the Steelers. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying both my memory and htese websites are in agreement. Could you show me a site or sourxe that shows the INTS. You don't need to write essays, but I asked a question and you didn't answer so I figured you may not have had one.

I think the Pats offense can easily be compared to the Colts. NE would get as much yards rushing among there rotating backs, and in 2004 Dillon had more yards than James. I don't need stats to show that the NE O-Line is far better than Indy's. BRady may not put uup the same numbers as Manning but the passing yards are still very high.

I didn't mention Brady because I didn't mention any player. If I were to mention players I'd put guys like Harrison, Seymour and Izzo above Brady. Like I showed, NE could win an AFC conference game with out Brady.

I think the biggest diffrence between the Colts and Pats offense would be that the Pats throw shorter passes and dont have the big play capability of the Colts, wouldnt you agree? Plus the Colts could never run the ball like the Pats. But they have 2 different style of offenses that are perfect for each qb!

I agree that the offenses are different. I just meant that if I had to choose between offenses I wouldn't mind getting stuck with the Pats if the Colts were taken. But I'd avoid the Colts D a lot more than I would the Pats D. It's a very different system in both teams. Belichick works with a system that relies on the defense to keep the game in control and a very well paced offense. While the Colts rely on an offense to put up points early and force the other team to take chances. When the Colts don't put up two or three TDs right away they have a hard time. Sometimes they step up in the 4th and win, and sometimes they don't. With NE style they are more consistent because it's a much more practical system, and I greatly would have preferred if Indy had spent the last 6 years building a Defense that you can work around like that. Bob Sanders is a good start but it should have started years ago. It's less likely for a power defense and strong O-line pushing offense to break down than it is for a speed defense and gunslinging offense to break down. I can only imagine what would have happened if the Ravens had lost a few more games in '97 and picked up Manning in '98. He would have had atleast 1 Superbowl ring for sure, maybe 2 or 3.

I agree with everything you said. I like Bob Sanders alot and you can tell how much of a difference he had on stopping the run game, since he was healty last week against KC. I thought he was the biggest difference on defense for the Colts in stopping the run against NE, he was in on every fuckin tackle against the run it seemed like and 30-40 percent of the time he was the first one there. Him staying in the lineup for the Colts will be huge next year. Great defenes usually have a great safety almost always! Dawkins, Ed Reed, Etc...Maybe pick up a few more lb's or dl and there defense should be much improved with Sanders healthy..

[Primo]

Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.

[Shallow]

Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.

I never said any QB could walk into NE and win AFC conference games. That being said I will not say anything bacd about Cassel because I simply don't know. No one would have said Brady would have done anything when he was backing Bledsoe. So I wouldn't be shocked if Brady went down and Cassel stepped up because if Belichick picked him he may be worth something. My point originally was with regards to Bledsoe. He was winning conference championships going to the Superbowl in the NE system (and did it once before in a very similar NE system with Parcells), and look what happened when he left that system 5 years and no playoffs and only one season over 500 with a 9-7. Of course if Rex Grossman can take a defensive powerhouse like the Bears to 13-3 seasons, and Tret Dilfer can win Superbowl rings, than who's to say even Rob Johnson couldn't have started for atleast 1 NE Superbowl season. If you have the line and have the Defense you don't need a good QB. I'm telling you right now that I could have been the QB for Baltimore's playoff run in 2000 and they still would have won a Superbowl.

["THE" MoSav]

Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.

I never said any QB could walk into NE and win AFC conference games. That being said I will not say anything bacd about Cassel because I simply don't know. No one would have said Brady would have done anything when he was backing Bledsoe. So I wouldn't be shocked if Brady went down and Cassel stepped up because if Belichick picked him he may be worth something. My point originally was with regards to Bledsoe. He was winning conference championships going to the Superbowl in the NE system (and did it once before in a very similar NE system with Parcells), and look what happened when he left that system 5 years and no playoffs and only one season over 500 with a 9-7. Of course if Rex Grossman can take a defensive powerhouse like the Bears to 13-3 seasons, and Tret Dilfer can win Superbowl rings, than who's to say even Rob Johnson couldn't have started for atleast 1 NE Superbowl season. If you have the line and have the Defense you don't need a good QB. I'm telling you right now that I could have been the QB for Baltimore's playoff run in 2000 and they still would have won a Superbowl.

exactly! The only thing we do know is what has happened. And Superbowls Brady=3 Manning=0 all factors aside..But yeah this argument could go on for days..
And i dont believe that you dont need a good Qb stuff, Trent Dilfer was good, not great but good. Hostetler was good for that run, Brad Johnson went to the pro bowl...Joe Namath was garbage, but shit hes in the HOF

[Shallow]

Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.

I never said any QB could walk into NE and win AFC conference games. That being said I will not say anything bacd about Cassel because I simply don't know. No one would have said Brady would have done anything when he was backing Bledsoe. So I wouldn't be shocked if Brady went down and Cassel stepped up because if Belichick picked him he may be worth something. My point originally was with regards to Bledsoe. He was winning conference championships going to the Superbowl in the NE system (and did it once before in a very similar NE system with Parcells), and look what happened when he left that system 5 years and no playoffs and only one season over 500 with a 9-7. Of course if Rex Grossman can take a defensive powerhouse like the Bears to 13-3 seasons, and Tret Dilfer can win Superbowl rings, than who's to say even Rob Johnson couldn't have started for atleast 1 NE Superbowl season. If you have the line and have the Defense you don't need a good QB. I'm telling you right now that I could have been the QB for Baltimore's playoff run in 2000 and they still would have won a Superbowl.

exactly! The only thing we do know is what has happened. And Superbowls Brady=3 Manning=0 all factors aside..But yeah this argument could go on for days..
And i dont believe that you dont need a good Qb stuff, Trent Dilfer was good, not great but good. Hostetler was good for that run, Brad Johnson went to the pro bowl...Joe Namath was garbage, but shit hes in the HOF

Anyone that makes an NFL starting roster is a good QB. Baltimore had 2 QBs that year and both were in the bottom of the list that year for QBs. Banks went on to Washington and put up terrible numbers (among trhe lowest in the league for a starter), and Dilfer went on to second string in Seattle. If he was a good NFL QB that lead a team to the Superbowl you'd think 1) he'd be baack the next year, and 2) he'd atleast start a season on the next team he went to. Grossman has not so great numbers yet his team went 13-3, and Kyle Orton had worse numbers last year and they still went 13-3. Hostetler wasn't hardly good for that run. He only got to start because Simms was out, and of the 3 playoff games he played only the 1 against Buffalo did he have even decent numbers. They held Chicago to 3 points. They beat SF with 5 FGs (no TDs) and 4 of them were long field goals. And when he came back to start the next year the Giants finished 8-8, and the year after that 6-10. He did much better in LA with numbers but couldn't get through the Bills. and after that he never saw the playoffs again.

["THE" MoSav]

Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.

I never said any QB could walk into NE and win AFC conference games. That being said I will not say anything bacd about Cassel because I simply don't know. No one would have said Brady would have done anything when he was backing Bledsoe. So I wouldn't be shocked if Brady went down and Cassel stepped up because if Belichick picked him he may be worth something. My point originally was with regards to Bledsoe. He was winning conference championships going to the Superbowl in the NE system (and did it once before in a very similar NE system with Parcells), and look what happened when he left that system 5 years and no playoffs and only one season over 500 with a 9-7. Of course if Rex Grossman can take a defensive powerhouse like the Bears to 13-3 seasons, and Tret Dilfer can win Superbowl rings, than who's to say even Rob Johnson couldn't have started for atleast 1 NE Superbowl season. If you have the line and have the Defense you don't need a good QB. I'm telling you right now that I could have been the QB for Baltimore's playoff run in 2000 and they still would have won a Superbowl.

exactly! The only thing we do know is what has happened. And Superbowls Brady=3 Manning=0 all factors aside..But yeah this argument could go on for days..
And i dont believe that you dont need a good Qb stuff, Trent Dilfer was good, not great but good. Hostetler was good for that run, Brad Johnson went to the pro bowl...Joe Namath was garbage, but shit hes in the HOF

Anyone that makes an NFL starting roster is a good QB. Baltimore had 2 QBs that year and both were in the bottom of the list that year for QBs. Banks went on to Washington and put up terrible numbers (among trhe lowest in the league for a starter), and Dilfer went on to second string in Seattle. If he was a good NFL QB that lead a team to the Superbowl you'd think 1) he'd be baack the next year, and 2) he'd atleast start a season on the next team he went to. Grossman has not so great numbers yet his team went 13-3, and Kyle Orton had worse numbers last year and they still went 13-3. Hostetler wasn't hardly good for that run. He only got to start because Simms was out, and of the 3 playoff games he played only the 1 against Buffalo did he have even decent numbers. They held Chicago to 3 points. They beat SF with 5 FGs (no TDs) and 4 of them were long field goals. And when he came back to start the next year the Giants finished 8-8, and the year after that 6-10. He did much better in LA with numbers but couldn't get through the Bills. and after that he never saw the playoffs again.

Yeah but niether Dilfer nor Hostetler cost there team. Dude you cant hate on Dilfer he was very solid during that whole run and even made plays in the Superbowl, he had like a 50 yd td pass early in the game..Hostetler wasnt the best example but he did go on to get a starting job for a few years, so thats saying something 

["THE" MoSav]

yeah but about Grossman, hes had BAD Games, but hes had GREAT Games so it evens out. He still threw 25 td passes and over 3000 yds, when they went off on offense this year Grossman was the Catalyst..

[Shallow]

Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.


In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.

["THE" MoSav]

Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.


In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.

oh thats not fair, you cant take away what someone does because of there defense 
What superbowl team hasnt had a good to great defense?
In that case take away what Mike Tyson has done too, because he has never really beat a good fighter he was fighting in such a weak era...

[Shallow]

Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.


In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.

oh thats not fair, you cant take away what someone does because of there defense 
What superbowl team hasnt had a good to great defense?
In that case take away what Mike Tyson has done too, because he has never really beat a good fighter he was fighting in such a weak era...

Taking something away from someone is not the same as saying they are not nearly as good as Manning. You want to say Brady, fine. I stongly disagree but atleast there has been a lot of evidence to support how great he is. To say a guy like Dilfer is even in Manning's league is just absurd. It's like saying Antowain Smith with his 2 superbowl wins is better than Barry Sanders because he got the job done in big games and Barry never won a Superbowl. Are you really going to sit here and say you'd take Dilfer on your team before Manning?


And Mike Tyson did fight a lot of junk coming up, but it's not like he avoided a whole class to make sure he won. He fought whatever Heavyweight they pout infront him. He could have tried a hand at Foreman when Foreman came back but that was a lose/lose business decision for Boxing. Tyson wins, and he beat an old man. Tyson loses and an old man beat him. Either way Boxing would lose a big draw. I don't call Tyson the best ever, but I won't say he avoided big fights.

[$Eg2$]

Im gonna pick my Colts I think there gonna win by a field goal Adam V. gonna take care of it.

["THE" MoSav]

Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.


In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.

oh thats not fair, you cant take away what someone does because of there defense 
What superbowl team hasnt had a good to great defense?
In that case take away what Mike Tyson has done too, because he has never really beat a good fighter he was fighting in such a weak era...

Taking something away from someone is not the same as saying they are not nearly as good as Manning. You want to say Brady, fine. I stongly disagree but atleast there has been a lot of evidence to support how great he is. To say a guy like Dilfer is even in Manning's league is just absurd. It's like saying Antowain Smith with his 2 superbowl wins is better than Barry Sanders because he got the job done in big games and Barry never won a Superbowl. Are you really going to sit here and say you'd take Dilfer on your team before Manning?


And Mike Tyson did fight a lot of junk coming up, but it's not like he avoided a whole class to make sure he won. He fought whatever Heavyweight they pout infront him. He could have tried a hand at Foreman when Foreman came back but that was a lose/lose business decision for Boxing. Tyson wins, and he beat an old man. Tyson loses and an old man beat him. Either way Boxing would lose a big draw. I don't call Tyson the best ever, but I won't say he avoided big fights.

whoa whoa whoa, i never ever ever put Dilfer in Mannings league. I just said he was good the year they won the SB, and you cant deny that. And comparing Antwan Smith to Barry Sanders is different then Brady vs Manning and you know it. Brady has the record for completions is a SB (32) so he is winning games for his team...

[Shallow]

Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.


In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.

oh thats not fair, you cant take away what someone does because of there defense 
What superbowl team hasnt had a good to great defense?
In that case take away what Mike Tyson has done too, because he has never really beat a good fighter he was fighting in such a weak era...

Taking something away from someone is not the same as saying they are not nearly as good as Manning. You want to say Brady, fine. I stongly disagree but atleast there has been a lot of evidence to support how great he is. To say a guy like Dilfer is even in Manning's league is just absurd. It's like saying Antowain Smith with his 2 superbowl wins is better than Barry Sanders because he got the job done in big games and Barry never won a Superbowl. Are you really going to sit here and say you'd take Dilfer on your team before Manning?


And Mike Tyson did fight a lot of junk coming up, but it's not like he avoided a whole class to make sure he won. He fought whatever Heavyweight they pout infront him. He could have tried a hand at Foreman when Foreman came back but that was a lose/lose business decision for Boxing. Tyson wins, and he beat an old man. Tyson loses and an old man beat him. Either way Boxing would lose a big draw. I don't call Tyson the best ever, but I won't say he avoided big fights.

whoa whoa whoa, i never ever ever put Dilfer in Mannings league. I just said he was good the year they won the SB, and you cant deny that. And comparing Antwan Smith to Barry Sanders is different then Brady vs Manning and you know it. Brady has the record for completions is a SB (32) so he is winning games for his team...

Sorry, I thought you were trying to say Dilfer could do what Maning couldn't because he won the big one, and just about everyone should agree that Manning on that same Superbowl team would have still equaled a Superbowl win. I think he was okay the year they won. He never had a full chance. Remember they were rotating QBs that year. But even in the playoffs they were beating teams like the Titans 24-10 with only 5 completions from Dilfer. When you are 5 for 16 in the NFL playoffs I tend to hold off using the word good.


And I wasn't saying Brady is like Antowain. Remember I just think Manning is better. I still think Brady is Hall of Fame material and a top 3 QB. I was comparing Smith to guys like Hostetler and Brad Johnson. Decent players but clearly not at the elite level reserved for players like Barry Sanders.