Log in:  

Register

National Football League

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: National Football League

09 Feb 2019 19:18

Did I really say 7 Superbowls for the Pats, sorry thinking of next year already :rolleyes:

This is something I really don't get about American sports either, people saying that getting to a Superbowl and losing is a bigger dent on your record than not actually making a Superbowl. I see it frequently trotted out in Brady v Montana debate's, oh Montana never lost a Superbowl whilst Brady has lost 3. To me anyways, that makes zero sense as by not making the Suprebowl, you lost as well and at an earlier stage, sometimes a much earlier stage which means you were not even good enough that season. How on earth does that equate to being better than getting to the Superbowl?

I saw some of the talking heads on the US Sports shows mention this when Pats lost last year and Brady-Behlicek were 5-3 in Superbowls, some people were suggesting if Patriots lost another one, it would be a huge black mark against them. I find that bizarre.

For example, surely it should be that the Patriots have won 11 Conference Championships versus 8 for the Steelers, giving them the superior record, rather than Patriots have lost more Superbowls.
pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,484
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

09 Feb 2019 19:50

I agree, it is pointless to penalize them for making the super bowl more and losing than not making the playoffs or losing beforehand. They got a silver medal and a conference ring.

Now if comparing Montana vs Manning, it is highly justified to bring up that Montana is 4-0 while Manning is 2-2. But you can't go Eli or Ben is better than Peyton because they all have 2 super bowl wins but those former 2 lost less than Peyton.
User avatar SHAD0W93
Member
 
Posts: 871
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 03:50

Re:

10 Feb 2019 00:56

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Having met and worked with a guy who played in, and lost a Super Bowl, I can 100% guarantee you he's glad he got there.

Good detective work on the pmcg7, except the SB wins. Having said that, with all the turnaround and rebuilds in that division with all three other teams, next season the Pats could go 6-0 there alone.

Once B&B are gone, even hard critics will slowly realize and have to admit just how astounding what they accomplished really is. If you look back in the same time frame, only two other teams have been there more than twice (PIT 2-1, SEA 1-2) . To achieve this level of winning, with not only a hard salary cap (as opposed to the NBA), but also free agency, plus that the average career of a player is 3.3 years, is not only unprecedented, but incomparable to other sports.

I'll bite and say the Patriots would have beaten the Saints. I'm not sure the score being a blowout, but I think they would have won. However, I also think Sean Payton is a better, more savvy and sage at least, coach than McVay, and the same goes for Brees over Goff.


I agree. From what the Saints produced in the playoffs, I doubt they would have won. If anything they seemed to be going off the boil. I don't think any NFL fan was surprised by the result and Patriots fans were expecting it. They could have easily lost the last three SBs but that's what makes them a great franchise. They find a way to win. Maybe the Eagles result was an anomaly ? Not really, the Eagles fully deserved their win. Can Kansas be a bigger threat next season ? Apart from them and the Rams it's hard to see where the biggest threat will come from at the moment. The Bears are probably a few seasons away.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,666
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

10 Feb 2019 01:10

The new Football Alliance has a "Sky Judge" who can buzz in...
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,334
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: National Football League

11 Feb 2019 12:08

pmcg76 wrote:Did I really say 7 Superbowls for the Pats, sorry thinking of next year already :rolleyes:

This is something I really don't get about American sports either, people saying that getting to a Superbowl and losing is a bigger dent on your record than not actually making a Superbowl. I see it frequently trotted out in Brady v Montana debate's, oh Montana never lost a Superbowl whilst Brady has lost 3. To me anyways, that makes zero sense as by not making the Suprebowl, you lost as well and at an earlier stage, sometimes a much earlier stage which means you were not even good enough that season. How on earth does that equate to being better than getting to the Superbowl?

I saw some of the talking heads on the US Sports shows mention this when Pats lost last year and Brady-Behlicek were 5-3 in Superbowls, some people were suggesting if Patriots lost another one, it would be a huge black mark against them. I find that bizarre.

For example, surely it should be that the Patriots have won 11 Conference Championships versus 8 for the Steelers, giving them the superior record, rather than Patriots have lost more Superbowls.


Its not used that much for Brady but I have seen it.

Mostly its used for Lebron. 3-8 is it in NBA Finals. And for a decade its been - Lebron can never surpass Michael because Michael never lost in the Finals. So even if Lebron were to win 6 championship, he would be way worse because he lost a lot in the Finals, whereas Michael only lost the easier games before the finals :o

Never mind that a lot of Lebron's losses were to way better teams than anything Michael ever faced.

Or that it's a team sport not an individual one. Forget that.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 29,021
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

11 Feb 2019 12:53

Joe Montana never lost a SB in four attempts. Never threw an intercept in a SB. In those days the rules didn't protect QBs as much and only injuries probably cost him more victories which he paid for when he retired with chronic leg and back problems. Twice MVP, three times SB MVP.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,666
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

11 Feb 2019 14:41

Joe Montana wasn't good enough to get to more than 4 SBs...
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,580
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: National Football League

11 Feb 2019 17:39

It is likely that there is someone sitting on the couch who could be playing in the NFL. I have heard it said that the difference between being on an NFL roster and being just a good college player is like this visual: the distance of 1 mm separating thumb and forefinger. NFL roster data just reported shows there are more undrafted free agents playing in the NFL than there are players drafted in rounds 4 through 7.
http://twitter.com/AllbrightNFL/status/1094655054135447552?s=09
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,002
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

Re: National Football League

11 Feb 2019 21:36

Now, if I was wanting to play in the NFL, the only way to do that now is to attend college and play collegiately for at least 3 years. But what if I had NFL ambitions but lacked motive and grades to make a go of college? Right now I'd be stuck to some other living. That is going to change in 2020 for some kids when a new football developmental league will start playing games in July of that year. The name of the league is (yes, present tense as the league was founded in 2017 by Don Lee, Tom Brady's agent) Pac Pro Football, short for Pacific Pro as there will be 4 teams based on the West Coast, USA. All California team's I think. Former NFL star Ed McAffrey is the commissioner. Adidas has signed as a sponsor. Players must be removed from high school no more than 3 years. They will be paid an average of $50K per year, a Don Lee principle that players be paid whether in school or not, and get an option for paid tuition and books at a community college. So, kids get an opportunity to try fulfilling an ambition and an opportunity at some other skill via secondary education. And maybe get a few guys off the couch, or being more productive.
http://www.pacificprofootball.com
As indicated in my previous post, about 32% of players on week 17 active NFL rosters were undrafted free agents. So, it would not be unexpected if some Pac Pro players actually make it to the NFL.
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,002
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

Re: National Football League

12 Feb 2019 23:28

on3m@n@rmy wrote:That is going to change in 2020..The name of the league is...Pac Pro Football, short for Pacific Pro.

Things are going to get even more crowded. We already have the AAF, which had ratings higher than expected, and higher than NBA games in it's first week. Next year the XFL starts back up, and the Freedom Football League is probably going to start as well, with a similar structure as the AAF, though likely playing in spring.

The AAF has already said it's fine with people thinking of it as a seed or feeder league to the NFL, which is just inevitable, depending on how long players bodies can hold up. It's going to be even more interesting to see just which league can survive, adapt, etc.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,287
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

13 Feb 2019 01:24

Alpe, I know you like to follow the money. The Chiefs tax returns for a period several years ago were recently examined by a local newspaper, much to the team's embarrassment, it seems:

By 2010, the Chiefs were very much a moneymaker, according to the team’s tax returns from that year, which were recently obtained by The Star. Those returns show:

There is little correlation between the team’s on-field performance and how much money it makes.

That year, the grown children of team founder Lamar Hunt split nearly $40 million in gross operating income. A team executive said they reinvested more than half of it in the team.

▪ Some of the costs fans grumble about the most, such as parking, amount to a tiny fraction of the team’s overall revenues. [meaning, it wouldn't hurt Chiefs' ownership in the slightest to make parking free for fans]

The Star examined three years of the team’s state and federal tax returns, the only ones that were available from a public database. The team had fought hard to keep those records private and they were subsequently sealed on orders of a state official. As of Jan. 30, they were no longer open for public view.


thanks to a rare public filing in a dispute between the Chiefs and the Missouri Department of Revenue, fans have a window for the first time in a quarter century into how the team makes money and how it’s spent.


The documents show the Chiefs grossed $302 million from all revenue streams in 2010, compared to $231 million in 2008. Nearly a third of 2010’s total came from two league entities: NFL Ventures and NFL Enterprises.

NFL Ventures is the league’s marketing arm, which makes money from, among other things, the sale of apparel by brands like Nike. Virtually all of NFL Ventures’ revenue is split equally among the league’s franchises.

NFL Enterprises oversee the league’s controlled media, such as the NFL Network and NFL Sunday Ticket — the league’s subscriber service to view out-of-market games. That money is also shared equally across the league.

Add in the team’s share of the television contract — $99.9 million — along with those revenues from NFL Ventures and NFL Enterprises — $99.8 million combined — and that’s nearly two-thirds of the gross receipts before a single ticket, parking pass or cup of beer was sold.

More than enough to cover its biggest expense each and every year, which in 2010 was the $148 million paid in salaries and wages for players, coaches and other personnel.

That the franchises get so much money from the NFL supports Noll’s view that teams aren’t incentivized to win because they make so much money regardless of on-field performance.


It may seem expensive to pay parking fees at the Truman Sports Complex for Chiefs home games, but those revenues are puny in the team’s overall financial picture. The 2010 tax return showed that Chiefs realized $4.7 million in parking revenues, barely 1.5 percent of the team’s overall haul.


LOL, the Chiefs's response to the relevation of their tax documents is sort of like Trump's response to calls to furnish his tax information: "I'm innocent, I did nothing wrong, but I don't what anyone to see what proves my innocence."

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/article225279155.html

pmcg76 wrote:All I hear is Pats have it easy because of their Division. Maybe this season, but I had a look at some stats. Over the last 5 seasons(4 Superbowls, 1 AFC Championship appearence). Pats have lost 18 regular season games, 7 of those were against their Divisional Rivals.

Record against AFC Rivals
v AFC West: 23-7
v Rest AFC: 30-6

6 losses in 5 seasons to other AFC teams, 3 of those this season, yet people are complaining about them having an easy Division every year. I won't even include the Play-offs as it becomes even more lopsided.

I also hear, oh it would be tougher in the NFC.

Record v NFC teams(5 seasons)
v NFC teams: 15-5


You mean record vs. AFC East, not West, and the record vs. the rest of the AFC is 24-6, not 30-6. But your point stands. In fact, going back as far as 2003, NE has a record vs. teams outside its division virtually identical to that inside its division:

The Patriots are 71-19 since 2003 in the AFC East. That’s a .788 winning percentage. Outside the division, they are 118-32 (.786).


https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/patriots-win-same-rate-vs-rest-nfl-they-do-vs-afc-east

So I stand corrected. However, it’s still easier for the Patriots to win their division—the overall record during that period of each of the other three teams was below .500--so they don’t have to be a WC, and play two games on the road. The AFC N and AFC W are both tougher divisions, usually. Pittsburgh and Baltimore have been playoff contenders throughout most of this century, and Denver, KC and/or SD/LA have been in the mix most of that time. Over the past five years, SD/LA, especially, and Denver, have better records outside their division than in it, though KC, interestingly, has a better record in it. Pittsburgh has a better record within the division than outside of it, while Baltimore is about the same within and outside.

What about home vs. road? Over the past five years, the Pats have a .850 percentage at home, .700 on the road. However, most teams have a better home record than road, some of them with a greater split, some with less. I’d say the home/away split for NE is more or less normal.

Where NE really shines, though, is in home-away in the postseason. Since 2001, they are 20-3 at home in the playoffs, and 4-4 on the road (not counting the SB, which is a neutral field). Again, playing in a weak division where you can avoid a WC really helps. As far as I can tell, the only other team in this century that has a comparable home/away split is Seattle, which is 10-1 at home in the postseason, and just 2-8 on the road. E.g., Pittsburgh is 8-5 vs. 5-4. Baltimore, which has played most of its postseason games on the road (again, the result of being in a tough division) is 2-3 at home, but 8-6 on the road. Indy is 8-3 vs. 4-8, Denver 6-3 vs. 0-3, SD/LA is 2-3 vs. 3-4.

Wrt the non-call in the Saints-Rams game, I don’t know how much this has been discussed, but in addition to being an extremely blatant PI, the defender clearly made helmet-helmet contact. So not only should PI have been called, but Robey-Coleman should probably have been ejected from the game. Interesting that there was talk before the season began that that call should be reviewable:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/can-controversial-helmet-rule-be-subject-to-replay-review-heres-why-nfl-head-of-officials-isnt-sure/
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,802
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: National Football League

13 Feb 2019 18:50

Breaking news - Joe Flacco is being traded to the Broncos.

How stupid are some Rams (specifically McVey and Goff)? Yesterday on The Herd it was reported that the Pats backup QB Brian Hoyer did a little pre-Superbowl film study of his own, and provided that information to the Pats DC, possibly helping the Pats defense better defend against the Rams offense. Hoyer's actions did not violate any league rules as far as I know. Reportedly, Hoyer watched ESPN and NFL-Network interviews of McVey and separate interviews with Goff and was able to recognize some play calling language, which was used to tip off Pats defenders as to what play was going to be run. IF that report is true, that's just ignorance and carelessness by any Rams who gave up those secrets.

I recall an interview about 4 or 5 years ago between Brian Billick and Russ Wilson after a playoff game. Billick asked something like "Tell me what you said at the line (of scrimmage) when you called the play?" Russ laughed and said, "I can't tell you that. If I did I'd be giving away our secrets". That was probably a rehearsed question to make the point you don't say anything like that in interviews.
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,002
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

Re: National Football League

13 Feb 2019 19:18

on3m@n@rmy wrote:Breaking news - Joe Flacco is being traded to the Broncos.

How stupid are some Rams (specifically McVey and Goff)? Yesterday on The Herd it was reported that the Pats backup QB Brian Hoyer did a little pre-Superbowl film study of his own, and provided that information to the Pats DC, possibly helping the Pats defense better defend against the Rams offense. Hoyer's actions did not violate any league rules as far as I know. Reportedly, Hoyer watched ESPN and NFL-Network interviews of McVey and separate interviews with Goff and was able to recognize some play calling language, which was used to tip off Pats defenders as to what play was going to be run. IF that report is true, that's just ignorance and carelessness by any Rams who gave up those secrets.

I recall an interview about 4 or 5 years ago between Brian Billick and Russ Wilson after a playoff game. Billick asked something like "Tell me what you said at the line (of scrimmage) when you called the play?" Russ laughed and said, "I can't tell you that. If I did I'd be giving away our secrets". That was probably a rehearsed question to make the point you don't say anything like that in interviews.

Flacco?! It doesn't make sense to me.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,334
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: National Football League

14 Feb 2019 00:16

Merckx index wrote:Alpe, I know you like to follow the money. The Chiefs tax returns for a period several years ago were recently examined by a local newspaper, much to the team's embarrassment, it seems:

That does not surprise me. So, they are like Netflix. As you may have noticed, I have completely given up on the politics thread.

on3m@n@rmy wrote:Breaking news - Joe Flacco is being traded to the Broncos.

Is he even better than Keenum? Who can honestly say yes, and by what amount?

As to the Hoyer story, that's been floating around a couple days, and completely legal. It reminds me more of Superbowl XXXVII, where the Raiders were so predictable, playing many plays that Gruden had designed, as the game got going he told the Buccaneers what to expect, and Jon Lynch said he was spot on, on virtually every play. A game that should have been competitive was only so for about a quarter. Insider knowledge...er, stupidity by your opponent, helps.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,287
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re: National Football League

14 Feb 2019 05:35

Alpe d'Huez wrote:
Merckx index wrote:Alpe, I know you like to follow the money. The Chiefs tax returns for a period several years ago were recently examined by a local newspaper, much to the team's embarrassment, it seems:

That does not surprise me. So, they are like Netflix. As you may have noticed, I have completely given up on the politics thread.

on3m@n@rmy wrote:Breaking news - Joe Flacco is being traded to the Broncos.

Is he even better than Keenum? Who can honestly say yes, and by what amount?

As to the Hoyer story, that's been floating around a couple days, and completely legal. It reminds me more of Superbowl XXXVII, where the Raiders were so predictable, playing many plays that Gruden had designed, as the game got going he told the Buccaneers what to expect, and Jon Lynch said he was spot on, on virtually every play. A game that should have been competitive was only so for about a quarter. Insider knowledge...er, stupidity by your opponent, helps.


Why does someone with Elway's pedigree have so much trouble finding a decent QB ? Bizarre. The fact that he was keen on Kaep at the end of 2016 says it all. Kaepernick in his wisdom said no, not for that money .........famous last words by Kaep in the NFL ? Then Elway stumbled into more QB quicksand.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,666
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2019 10:49

pmcg76 wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
Alpe d'Huez wrote:Just for fun, I predict next year's Super Bowl will be won by the Patriots.

I know, really went out a limb there. But I'm not joking. I don't see them regressing much at all.


Well.

This was a really weird one because the Pats were an above average team this season but not by much. They were clearly worse than the Chiefs, Chargers and Texans. I would argue that teams like the Colts and Steelers also were the same level just had much tougher schedules and divisions.

But in the playoffs, they were the best. Better than any team in the AFC, and better than any team in the NFC.
I give them that.

I think its clear though that if the regular season wasn't tilted so far in the favor of the Pats they would have been the 3rd or 4 seed. So they would have had to face 2 away games, no bye week.

And sometimes, teams that are the best in the playoffs, may struggle to overcome having to win 3 games (with everything that can go wrong in 1 game), including 2 away to get to the SB.

So what happens next season. If the Pats play the same in the regular season do they get the same easy schedule while the rest of the AFC kills eachother again? If so, yeah i see a similar Pats outcome.

If they play like they did in the playoffs the whole season, maybe they'll tire eachother out again.

Brady was also noticeably worse this season. Including nothing special in the p.o. The biggest joke of the season is that the Pats defense carrying him to the SB counts as him "michael jordaning himself to 5 rings".

Will he stay the same, improve, or with another year, maybe deteriorate even more for 2019. Bellichick might be able to carry him again but it might be even harder.


You know what, I get that people hate the Pats, but the level of nonsense people throw at them is unreal. Hitch rated them as only the 6th team in the AFC yet they beat Chiefs, Texans and Colts in the regular season. When they beat the Bears, Hitch said it was because the Bears didnt turn up, ditto for the Chargers, didn't turn up etc, etc. So all these teams don't turn up against the Pats. Rather than give credit to the Pats, it is down to other teams not performing. That is just pure bias. Look at it objectively.

All I hear is Pats have it easy because of their Division. Maybe this season, but I had a look at some stats. Over the last 5 seasons(4 Superbowls, 1 AFC Championship appearence). Pats have lost 18 regular season games, 7 of those were against their Divisional Rivals.

Record against AFC Rivals
v AFC West: 23-7
v Rest AFC: 30-6

6 losses in 5 seasons to other AFC teams, 3 of those this season, yet people are complaining about them having an easy Division every year. I won't even include the Play-offs as it becomes even more lopsided.

I also hear, oh it would be tougher in the NFC.

Record v NFC teams(5 seasons)
v NFC teams: 15-5

I guess that is a worse record than against AFC teams, but it would still put them on a 12-4 projection even if they played all NFC teams. I would imagine that would give them a high seeding most seasons.

Also claims they got lucky because they played the Rams rather than the Saints for the Superbowl. Well Rams, Chiefs and Chargers all had high octane offences and teams considered superior to the Pats, yet Behlicek & Co outschemed them all. Why would the Saints have been any different? If anything, Saints were nowhere the team they were in the regular season.

I honestly believe if Pats had a harder schedule, they would simply up their game accordingly as they did in the play-offs. Yes, they did not look great in the regular season this season, but I guess when you are contending every year for the Superbowl, regular season becomes a bit mundane.

I don't really know the history of American sports, but I do know that football always appears to have been the most competitive, especially in the salary cap era so I don't really know where the Patriots rank in the greatest team ranking. However, I did look at the Montreal Canadies history. Most of their wins were in a league with 4 or 6 teams only. Even their later titles were in a newly expanded 12 team league. Hardly a fair comparison to what the Pats have done the past 18 years.

In fairness, most posters here respect the Pats even if they don't like them, but a few can't seem to give them any credit at all. Ah well, 7 Superbowl wins, 9 appearences in 18 seasons and to think the first Patriots game I ever watched was when Bledsoe got injured and Brady took over. Had moved to the US/Maine that year. Guess I got lucky.


I think you misunderstand me. I don't hate the Pats. I give the Pats loads of credit. I don't think there's even a discussion for greatest team ever.

WHat I don't like is how lucky Brady gets so often. I don't like the idea that because the Pats won all those SB's Brady is 10 x better than any other qb when objectively, he was only the actual best qb in the NFL for a few seasons out of his 2 decades. Now most of the time he was top 2 or 3 which is amazing but he was never this Jordan, Lebron like figure who singlehandidly carried teams for years and could win any game he wanted.

The fact that he just won a SB while not even a top 5 qb in the league, with his defense holding a top offsense to 3 points says it all. People will look back and act like Brady outplayed Brees this season :o

I do believe the Pats would have had similar success with a different qb providing he was also quite good. And this qb would then be the GOAT. The fact that Bellichick won 3 out of the 4 games without Brady 2 seasons ago, and the one he lost was with the backup to the backup tells me a lot.

I'm not a Pats are crap guy. I'm just a Pats team >>>> Brady, guy.

I also don't think I said they only beat the Chargers as the Chargers didn't show up. I actually said that the Pats would even have won if the CHargers did show up. They were way better but the Chargers ruined any tension by not even showing up.

Bears though probably didn't show up if you look at the Pats performances this season. They lost to the Titans, they lost to **** teams like Detroit and Jax quite handidly. But they crushed the Bears who were so dominant in the second half of the season. Actually I think Bears played Pats back when they were still finding themselves, so that could partly explain it. Also any given sunday.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 29,021
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2019 13:51

The Hitch wrote:WHat I don't like is how lucky Brady gets so often. I don't like the idea that because the Pats won all those SB's Brady is 10 x better than any other qb when objectively, he was only the actual best qb in the NFL for a few seasons out of his 2 decades. Now most of the time he was top 2 or 3 which is amazing but he was never this Jordan, Lebron like figure who singlehandidly carried teams for years and could win any game he wanted.

Can you name an NFL QB who actually did that? Not an NBA player, but an NFL player? I can't. Even if you look at Joe Montana, he played in Bill Walsh's system, the same system Steve Young played great in, even Steve Bono and Bill Musgrave played well in it. Joe also threw to Jerry Rice, as did Young. That didn't hurt. Granted, only an idiot would say Montana wasn't great, especially his accuracy, and in the clutch, plus he actually helped rise the Chiefs up at the end of his career. But no player singlehandedly carries teams in the NFL, and never has. Even if you look at other positions, Walter Peyton was on a terrible Bears team for years, and he only made them average as great as he was. It took a turnover of the team and incredible defense to get him a ring. One could even argue the NFL is the consummate team sport. Ray Lewis said as much.

Also take a look at Brady's teammates, coaches, and even former teammates, they repeatedly heap praise and respect of the highest order on him. Most players that have tried to say he's not either get laughed at by others in the know, or they are humbled by Tom's play soon enough.

I will fully agree though the other half of the puzzle is Belicheck. To me he really is unquestionably the greatest coach in football history. Better than Lombardi even. I don't think they would have won all the SB's they did with, say, Eli Manning (not dissing Eli, just saying he's average, but a long durable career over similar time frame). But they probably would have won the same with Brees. They may have won a couple with Rivers or Roethlesberger during this time stretch as well. So I will say this, Brady is probably the GOAT, but Belicheck is definitely the GOAT, as I see it.

Let's flip it around a little though. If Brady had been on the Cleveland Browns all these years how would he have done? I say quite well. The Browns actually made the playoffs twice, once under Butch Lewis, another under Romeo Crenell. But they also were terrible most years, as everyone knows. But I think he would have given his team more wins, and more chances, and they certainly would have built the team around him. Would he have taken them to 6, 7, 8 Super Bowls? No, I don't think so. But his career may have looked more like Philip Rivers, or Aaron Rodgers perhaps, with some winning seasons, and a couple good playoff runs, maybe a Super Bowl, and some MVP awards. That's still an HOF career. You add in the longevity of his career, and it adds to the discussion of all time greats.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,287
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2019 13:57

Alpe d'Huez wrote:
The Hitch wrote:WHat I don't like is how lucky Brady gets so often. I don't like the idea that because the Pats won all those SB's Brady is 10 x better than any other qb when objectively, he was only the actual best qb in the NFL for a few seasons out of his 2 decades. Now most of the time he was top 2 or 3 which is amazing but he was never this Jordan, Lebron like figure who singlehandidly carried teams for years and could win any game he wanted.

Can you name an NFL QB who actually did that? Not an NBA player, but an NFL player? I can't. Even if you look at Joe Montana, he played in Bill Walsh's system, the same system Steve Young played great in, even Steve Bono and Bill Musgrave played well in it. Joe also threw to Jerry Rice, as did Young. That didn't hurt. Granted, only an idiot would say Montana wasn't great, especially his accuracy, and in the clutch, plus he actually helped rise the Chiefs up at the end of his career. But no player singlehandedly carries teams in the NFL, and never has. Even if you look at other positions, Walter Peyton was on a terrible Bears team for years, and he only made them average as great as he was. It took a turnover of the team and incredible defense to get him a ring. One could even argue the NFL is the consummate team sport. Ray Lewis said as much.

Also take a look at Brady's teammates, coaches, and even former teammates, they repeatedly heap praise and respect of the highest order on him. Most players that have tried to say he's not either get laughed at by others in the know, or they are humbled by Tom's play soon enough.

I will fully agree though the other half of the puzzle is Belicheck. To me he really is unquestionably the greatest coach in football history. Better than Lombardi even. I don't think they would have won all the SB's they did with, say, Eli Manning (not dissing Eli, just saying he's average, but a long durable career over similar time frame). But they probably would have won the same with Brees. They may have won a couple with Rivers or Roethlesberger during this time stretch as well. So I will say this, Brady is probably the GOAT, but Belicheck is definitely the GOAT, as I see it.

Let's flip it around a little though. If Brady had been on the Cleveland Browns all these years how would he have done? I say quite well. The Browns actually made the playoffs twice, once under Butch Lewis, another under Romeo Crenell. But they also were terrible most years, as everyone knows. But I think he would have given his team more wins, and more chances, and they certainly would have built the team around him. Would he have taken them to 6, 7, 8 Super Bowls? No, I don't think so. But his career may have looked more like Philip Rivers, or Aaron Rodgers perhaps, with some winning seasons, and a couple good playoff runs, maybe a Super Bowl, and some MVP awards. That's still an HOF career. You add in the longevity of his career, and it adds to the discussion of all time greats.


Of course.

Brady at any other team still is a HOF player, takes them to playoffs etc.

The prevailing narrative atm though is that Brady at any team = 6 superbowls and Pats were just the lucky ones to fall on him.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 29,021
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Re:

14 Feb 2019 16:37

The Hitch wrote:
Alpe d'Huez wrote:
The Hitch wrote:WHat I don't like is how lucky Brady gets so often. I don't like the idea that because the Pats won all those SB's Brady is 10 x better than any other qb when objectively, he was only the actual best qb in the NFL for a few seasons out of his 2 decades. Now most of the time he was top 2 or 3 which is amazing but he was never this Jordan, Lebron like figure who singlehandidly carried teams for years and could win any game he wanted.

Can you name an NFL QB who actually did that? Not an NBA player, but an NFL player? I can't. Even if you look at Joe Montana, he played in Bill Walsh's system, the same system Steve Young played great in, even Steve Bono and Bill Musgrave played well in it. Joe also threw to Jerry Rice, as did Young. That didn't hurt. Granted, only an idiot would say Montana wasn't great, especially his accuracy, and in the clutch, plus he actually helped rise the Chiefs up at the end of his career. But no player singlehandedly carries teams in the NFL, and never has. Even if you look at other positions, Walter Peyton was on a terrible Bears team for years, and he only made them average as great as he was. It took a turnover of the team and incredible defense to get him a ring. One could even argue the NFL is the consummate team sport. Ray Lewis said as much.

Also take a look at Brady's teammates, coaches, and even former teammates, they repeatedly heap praise and respect of the highest order on him. Most players that have tried to say he's not either get laughed at by others in the know, or they are humbled by Tom's play soon enough.

I will fully agree though the other half of the puzzle is Belicheck. To me he really is unquestionably the greatest coach in football history. Better than Lombardi even. I don't think they would have won all the SB's they did with, say, Eli Manning (not dissing Eli, just saying he's average, but a long durable career over similar time frame). But they probably would have won the same with Brees. They may have won a couple with Rivers or Roethlesberger during this time stretch as well. So I will say this, Brady is probably the GOAT, but Belicheck is definitely the GOAT, as I see it.

Let's flip it around a little though. If Brady had been on the Cleveland Browns all these years how would he have done? I say quite well. The Browns actually made the playoffs twice, once under Butch Lewis, another under Romeo Crenell. But they also were terrible most years, as everyone knows. But I think he would have given his team more wins, and more chances, and they certainly would have built the team around him. Would he have taken them to 6, 7, 8 Super Bowls? No, I don't think so. But his career may have looked more like Philip Rivers, or Aaron Rodgers perhaps, with some winning seasons, and a couple good playoff runs, maybe a Super Bowl, and some MVP awards. That's still an HOF career. You add in the longevity of his career, and it adds to the discussion of all time greats.


Of course.

Brady at any other team still is a HOF player, takes them to playoffs etc.

The prevailing narrative atm though is that Brady at any team = 6 superbowls and Pats were just the lucky ones to fall on him.


I think you are imagining things. I dont think anyone is pushing a narrative that Brady would have won 6 Superbowls at any team. Can you point to people who are pushing that narrative? jeez there are plenty of talking heads on the various US sports shows so it should be relatively easy to highlight if it is the prevailing narrative. Defo havent seen anyone on here suggest that or the other places I follow NFL. I am a Patriots fan and I dont believe that.

As someone who came to NFL late, I always thought the role of QB was over-rated and I cannot really declare who was the greatest NFL player, but QBs always seem to rate highest. Likewise I don't always understand American logic when it comes to analysing sports. Can you honestly imagine anyone saying having 4 Olympic Gold medals is better than having 6 Gold and 3 silvers, yet people in the US actually believe that is true when it comes to NFL.
pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,484
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

Re: National Football League

14 Feb 2019 16:41

movingtarget wrote:
Alpe d'Huez wrote:
Merckx index wrote:Alpe, I know you like to follow the money. The Chiefs tax returns for a period several years ago were recently examined by a local newspaper, much to the team's embarrassment, it seems:

That does not surprise me. So, they are like Netflix. As you may have noticed, I have completely given up on the politics thread.

on3m@n@rmy wrote:Breaking news - Joe Flacco is being traded to the Broncos.

Is he even better than Keenum? Who can honestly say yes, and by what amount?

As to the Hoyer story, that's been floating around a couple days, and completely legal. It reminds me more of Superbowl XXXVII, where the Raiders were so predictable, playing many plays that Gruden had designed, as the game got going he told the Buccaneers what to expect, and Jon Lynch said he was spot on, on virtually every play. A game that should have been competitive was only so for about a quarter. Insider knowledge...er, stupidity by your opponent, helps.


Why does someone with Elway's pedigree have so much trouble finding a decent QB ? Bizarre. The fact that he was keen on Kaep at the end of 2016 says it all. Kaepernick in his wisdom said no, not for that money .........famous last words by Kaep in the NFL ? Then Elway stumbled into more QB quicksand.

Right you are, Alpe, on Flacco vs Keenam. Flacco is NOT better than Keenam when looking at overall rating or QBR. Even if Flacco might be slightly better in a specific category such as deep ball, which I'm not sure he is. I always felt the Ravens made a huge mistake signing Joe to all that money after the Ravens 2012 SB win, where Joe's rating for that game was about 124 (Pro Football Reference for all these stats). But his rating for that same 2012 season was 87.7 and his QBR was an awful 51.1; career rating of 84.1; and QBR the last 2 seasons of about 50 and 58. For Keenam in DEN his 2018 rating and QBR were about 81 and 48, respectively; but better in 2017 at MIN with a 98 rating and 74 QBR.

As for Elway, player stardom does not necessarily equate to great recognition or evaluator of talent. Elway is either that OR he trusts staffers who lack those skills. Either way, it falls on Elway's shoulders. But just look at Denver's QBs recently: draft picks Osweiler, Siemian, Paxton Lynch, Kelly; trades for Sanchez & Keenam (both desperation moves). As for Paxton, part of his problem in Denver MAY have been staff/coaches not recognizing and taking advantage of the things he does well. Seattle acquired Paxton for that reason, where a Pete Carroll principle is to find what a player does well and use that. We may see next season if Paxton sticks on Seattle's roster, and the result would be telling of the Denver staff and Elway. NOT THAT Lynch will replace Russ Wilson! That won't happen. But Lynch performing well as a backup would be telling of Denver.
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,002
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

Back to top