NFL 2018 Season Starts Tonight

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The Packers were the team of the 60's
The Steelers were the team of the 70's
The 49'ers were the team of the 80's
The Cowboys were the team of the 90's

Tom Brady blows them all away.

Tom Brady and the Patriots have been the dominant team for two straight decades.

No other team or QB has come close.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
No other team or QB has come close.

The Cowboys came close to being the team of the 70's as well as the team of the 90's.

If the Cowboys would have just won one of the two games which they lost by just four points to the Steelers then they would have been the team of the 70's as well as the team of the 90's.

So it is not true that no other team came close to being the team of two different decades.

Besides that, the Cowboys have the highest winning percentage of any NFL team.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
LA vs. Boston is a great storyline.

In addition to the fact that they just played a World Series this past fall, the NBA history between these two cities is unparalleled.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If the Cowboys would have just won one of the two games which they lost by just four points to the Steelers

LOL...The Steelers were up 35-17 against the Cowboys in Super Bowl XIII with seven minutes left. It was a rout. The Steelers went to their prevent defense, and the Cowboys scored two garbage TD's when the game was over a long time ago.

Same thing for Super Bowl X. The Steelers were up 21-10 with three minutes left before Dallas scored a garbage TD at the end of the game.

The Steelers destroyed the Cowboys in both Super Bowls.

The Cowboys lost 3 Super Bowls in the 70's. The Oakland Raiders and Miami Dolphins were better teams during the 70's than the Cowboys.
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
If Brady continues to win, your premise is going to die.
Well, no. Probably not, given the likelihood is that this is Tom's last hurrah.

His averages will still be lower and he'll still have ints and losses, neither of which is true for Joe.

And Brady's records will have taken three more years as it stands, a thing that largely speaks to the rules changes and medical advances that make playing the position easier and qb longevity more impressive.

He's a great qb, but I still wouldn't call him the best of his generation, let along the GOAT. The greatest system qb of all time to be sure, and a great qb in general. A man with moxy, prowess, and a number of advantages that others lacked, as noted prior.

Heck of a game though. It's impossible for me to root against him at this point. I admire him and what he's doing.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
His averages will still be lower and he'll still have ints and losses, neither of which is true for Joe.

As much as I like Joe Montana (his high school was 10 miles from my high school), and having lived through the Steelers dynasty of the 70's, the mere fact that Tom Brady has started more Super Bowls than Montana and Bradshaw combined is mind boggling to me.

Pick any two QB's from the Super Bowl era, and Brady has more Super Bowl starts than any of the two combined.

He has more NFL championship/Super Bowl starts than Otto Graham or Bart Starr. You can add Troy Aikman's Super Bowl starts with Graham's or Starr's NFL Championship Game starts, and they still are not more than Brady's.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Knew I had this somewhere:

Brady:

NE vs STL: 145 yds, 1 td, 0 ints, 86.2 rating
NE vs Car: 354 yds, 3 td, 1 int, 100.5 rating
NE vs Phi: 236 yds, 2 td, 0 int, 110.2 rating
NE vs Gia: 266 yds, 1 td, 0 int, 82.5 rating
NE vs Gia: 276 yds, 2 td, 1 int, 91.1 rating
NE vs Sea: 328 yds, 4 td, 2 int, 101.1 rating
NE vs Atl: 466 yds, 2 td, 1 int, 95.2 rating
NE vs Phi: 505 yds, 3 td, 0 int, 115.4 rating

Montana:

SF vs Cin: 157 yds, 1 td, 0 ints, 100 rating *
SF vs Mia: 331 yds, 3 td, 0 ints, 127.2 rating*
SF vs Cin: 357 yds, 2 td, 0 ints, 115.2 rating
SF vs Den: 297 yds, 5 td, 0 ints, 157.6 rating

It's taken Tom 8 SBs to come up with 4 ratings of 100 or better. And in those four games he threw 12 tds against 3 ints vs Joe's 11 tds and 0 ints passing. Then Joe rushed for another 2.

Tom's highest rated game is the equal of Joe's middle and he never came close to Montana's ceiling.

The rules Montana and company had in play made the qb position harder to play and harder to play for anywhere as long, meaning both the short term and cumulative records are skewed in favor of the new kids.

Marino stood alone in the 5k club until those changes. And now it's comparatively crowded. It's simply easier to compile yards, easier to have a higher completion percentage, etc.

* notes qb also rushed for a td
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
As much as I like Joe Montana (his high school was 10 miles from my high school), and having lived through the Steelers dynasty of the 70's, the mere fact that Tom Brady has started more Super Bowls than Montana and Bradshaw combined is mind boggling to me.
It's impressive, but it doesn't have bearing on the point of how he played the position, let alone played it in the biggest game, where he came up short a few times, even when leading historical offenses (including a run with his own Jerry Rice). He's a great one, and a Jabbar when it comes to longevity, but Joe is still the big game gold standard.

I wish he'd had a chance to play within the more modern rules. Or Marino...maybe especially Dan, given his game.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Same thing for Super Bowl X. The Steelers were up 21-10 with three minutes left before Dallas scored a garbage TD at the end of the game.

It is obvious that you didn't see the game because the Boys had the ball at the Steelers's 38 yard line with 50 seconds left in the game and with a little luck could have won that game.

The Steelers destroyed the Cowboys in both Super Bowls.

Not in Super Bowl X and in Super Bowl XIII the Steelers only had a four point lead going into the fourth quarter. So the Boys were not actually destroyed by the Steelers in either game.

The Cowboys lost 3 Super Bowls in the 70's. The Oakland Raiders and Miami Dolphins were better teams during the 70's than the Cowboys.

They were in half of the Super Bowls in the 70's, more than any other team. And they smeared the Dolphins 24-3 in Super Bowl VII. If they would have won Super Bowl XIII then they would have tied the Steelers for the most Super Bowl wins in the 70's and they would have appeared in more Super Bowls in that decade than the Steelers and that would have made them the team of the 70's and the team of the 90's.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
While both games were very exciting yesterday, they were both marred by bad officiating.

The pass interference no-call in the first game, and the roughing the QB call in the second game.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Just to keep it organized (and feel free to get particular with your prediction, Jerry):

NE @ KC

NE 17, KC 35 (tet)
NE 23, KC 17 (WoZ)
NE 22, KC 31 (TH)
NE 27, KC 26 oddsshark
NE 31, KC 27 bleacher
I later amended it to a 29-23 prediction, but this was from January 14:
I think NE is justly the dog in this game, due to them playing at Arrowhead, plus the Chiefs' performance this season. But I do disagree. These teams have played each other, back when the Chiefs had a better running game, and the Pats had a worse one. It's true that NE's played better overall at home this year, but that is within their own control, and I think they will control that, and play a quality game again against KC. All other things being equal, I would have the Pats winning this game by six. I don't feel compelled to think that all other things aren't equal in this game, so I stand by, the Pats by six.
Rams @ NO

Rams 42, NO 40 (tet)
Rams 27, NO 37 (WoZ)
Rams 35, NO 38 (TH)
Rams 21, NO 27 oddsshark
Rams 26, NO 31 bleacher
I called the Saints, but I didn't predict a score.

I love the 'LA vs. Boston' angle again (World Series). I don't have a feel for the Rams right now, aside from that their defensive line is strong (stronger then KC's, more like Philly's). I expected NO to win the NFC, so I need to do some figuring before weighing in on this SB.

I think this is a great season for the Rams, I considered it a real triumph that they won last week, after losing in the divisional round last year. This win against NO is icing on their cake, and there's no reason to rule them out from winning against NE. If you remember, they were the toast of the town earlier this season, and it is nice to see the team regain their former top-billing.

It will be a great test for young McVeigh & co., and I love the Rams-Pats rematch (though they were St. Louis last time---McVeigh was 16 years old then, and Kurt Warner's an old graybeard now), and if this spells the end of the Pats' /Brady's /Belichick's run of domination, then with either a win or a loss against LAR in SB LIII, it's a fitting bookend, if you're into storytelling.

Now, the venue---I couldn't tell, is the roof open in Atlanta in that new stadium?
 
Top