NFL 2016
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
In the fourth quarte he was in long enough to fumble and get sacked, taking the Falcons out of field goal range.
Well.....that's why they call him "Matty Ice".
The Patriots won their 5th Super Bowl tonight.
They joined the Cowboys and 49'ers, as the only NFL teams with 5 Super Bowl wins.
HOWEVER, the Pittsburgh Steelers have SIX Super Bowl wins.
So....no matter how great the Cowboys, 49'ers, and Patriots have been.....the Pittsburgh Steelers are still the team with the most Super Bowl trophies.
View attachment 25284
They joined the Cowboys and 49'ers, as the only NFL teams with 5 Super Bowl wins.
HOWEVER, the Pittsburgh Steelers have SIX Super Bowl wins.
So....no matter how great the Cowboys, 49'ers, and Patriots have been.....the Pittsburgh Steelers are still the team with the most Super Bowl trophies.
View attachment 25284
No, let's blame the idiot/moron coach for not running the ball on 3rd and 1 at the New England 25, up by 8, on the New England 25 yard line with just over 3:00 to play.
Being a stock trader, dealing with clients in the NE, much of the day, here comes another 4-5 months of New England/Boston jazz, "pride," boasting, rudeness, and, more importantly, those stupid Bostonian accents. Armageddon is upon us. Wait...that happened in AD 1970, when the mafia KC Chiefs won....
Brady turned the ball over early and was awful until the Falcons struggled against adjustments in the second half and left an inexperienced defense to tire and fold. I think that if they'd just kicked the fg as soon as they were easily within range late, forget throwing or running the ball, it would have sealed the deal and no one is talking about him negatively. Heck, if the coin toss goes the other way in OT it's as likely another story...But it was Ryan's first rodeo and with a little tuning there's no reason for them not to charge at the thing again in short order. They're mostly young and very talented.
The coaching in the second half wasn't great in clutch. But the coaches didn't turn the ball over or commit penalties that took them out of fg range. The Pats did what they had to do to win, keep the Falcons offense off the field and eat up the clock with scoring drives. Bill found the right approach after a bad start and the Falcons didn't make similar adjustments. Happens all the time with teams that play New England.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The coaches for Atlanta made a huge blunder when they decided to try to run out the clock after they had built a comfortable lead. How many times have we seen that happen only to see that strategy backfire?
Too many!
They should have kept the pedal to the metal!
Too many!
They should have kept the pedal to the metal!
I think the more important number than 5 is 7---7 SB appearances. Of course 5/7 is great, but getting to 7 is phenomenal. Surely Montana outplayed Brady in his four appearances, but he only got his team to the championship four times, all other seasons he went home early.
It was gratifying that Aikman admitted Brady is the GOAT, and that Johnson admitted the same about Belichick.
The other number is 15. What is the name of the last NFL qb to even appear in SBs 15 years apart?
'Restores faith. Envy and jealously may not be incurable diseases after all.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
EXCELLENT POINT!
beloved57
Well-known member
No doubt I'm sick. The coaching staff gave that game away. When Houlio caught that sideline pass for the first down, we were in field goal range. All that had to be done was take long counts and run the ball at least 3 times. That would have kept us at least in field goal range, if made, could of iced it. Because a touchdown and two point conversion could not have tied the score.
He handed a team to his back up, Young, and they went to another. You don't think he could have managed it? I do. And he'd have managed it in a narrower window.
A list of reasons why as great as Brady is, Joe remains the GOAT.
1. It isn't how often you get there, but what you do when you get there, or we'd be arguing Kelly and Tarkington among the very best to ever play, instead of recognizing them as second tier HOFers.
2. Brady won two of his rings with essentially average play as a qb. His first three years as a starter he was in the mid 80s, which is solid, but not really pro bowl form. His first pro bowl caliber year was in his 3rd SB ring season registering in the borderline low 90s.
2. Brady has played in one system his entire career. A system that has had his back up win 11 games in a season, before going elsewhere to evaporate like smoke in a fan. Great coaching and a great organization that puts a premium on smart, well conditioned, terrific ball players instead of spending disproportionate money on a handful of transcendent players. It's a sort of moneyball that has worked.
3. Brady took two all time offenses into SBs and lost.
4. Montana not only never lost, he never threw a pick in a SB.
5. Tom has been the starter for 15 seasons and been to the SB 7 times. Joe was the Niners starter for 8 full seasons (a partial in 1980, two half seasons due to injury and his last couple in KC) and went 4 times. That's close to a push with the edge to Montana.
6. Tom took over a team that was around .500 with the potential to be better. Joe took over a team that had lost 14 games for two straight years before he arrived.
7. Today's rules favor both qb longevity and the proliferation of passing attacks. Joe played and got his stats when qbs and wrs could be and often were brutalized. That's why you only had one Marino until the changes and a handful of 5,000+ yd passers since. Not taking away from Brees, Manning, or Brady, but it's the way it is. Give me Montana or Marino with today's gentleness and I think they rewrite our expectations.
8. Tom once again benefits from poor coaching on the other side in a series with the game on the line. He shouldn't have had the ring for the Seattle game and he really shouldn't have this one, though he did his part.
Aikman is a decent guy who is lucky to be in the Hall. He's a really good qb who played on great teams and fit his system. Like Trent Dilfer plus, an excellent game manager.
The case for Bill is stronger. His coordinators and back up qbs look like winners, go elsewhere and do nothing.
That's really a longevity call and you're back to the rules changes that made that more and more likely. But it's hard. You have to have a guy come into a team that's close to being really good, give him great coaching, a solid front office and a lot of time with all those in position.
So I think it's easier to argue we're looking at the best run of any franchise, top to bottom, in NFL history over the same time span. We'll see what happens when you remove one of the ingredients within the next five years.
Last edited:
Five.
If this argument, which is essentially that he was peripheral early on, held any water, he'd have never won these last two. Furthermore, you'd still have to explain away how Montana somehow didn't drive his teams to more than four SBs.
NE also did not make the playoffs that year.
And more than just the NYG defenses in those games, played out of their skulls to squelch their opponents' favored offensive attacks, in SBs. "Defense wins championships" wasn't coined for nothing. Also don't forget, as unlikely as Edelman's catch last night was, NE endured one each of equal if not even more unlikeliness, in both those games. It's nice to get a miraculous catch in NE's favor.
Granted that Brady has dug holes for his team (
14 (2008), and seven.
So now you're arguing against yourself in saying that it was just Joe who turned around the whole program, nothing to do with other players of the coaching staff, that it wasn't a team effort?
So all the interceptions that they've each thrown, was because of the rules change?
And so his opinion is less weighty than your own.
I refuse to concede Brady's longevity as a strike against him.
Kraft, Belichick and Brady---only one of which is ever on the field during play.
Look, the whole world watched Atlanta lose this game, it is clear. But it's just as clear that when the dust settled it was the Patriots still standing. It wasn't an accident.
Last edited:
The Berean
Well-known member
Bart Starr won 5 NFL titles in 7 years. He should be in the discussion for GOAT. Also, Otto Graham won 7 titles (3 NFL titles, 4 AAFC titles)
Yeah, five rings. That's not really an answer though. Trent Dilfer can't wave his in Marino's face and stake a claim to being better, but he has that ring. Dan doesn't.
No, that's not true. Trent Dilfer, among others, won a ring riding a team and contributing without being great at his position. Brady's numbers tell you that he wasn't. He was pretty good during the first two, like Dilfer. He had the greatest clutch kicker in NFL history and that fellow gave him the winning margin (and got him to a couple where he failed during the approach, as I've noted before in breaking down playoff runs) for his first three. The last of those three found him crossing the threshold into lower tier pro bowl form. Brady really didn't become the guy we see now until a couple of years later.
Well, no, though I could. As I noted, Montana had only 8 full seasons and two half seasons under center. Or, half the time he did lead them to the SB, where he never threw a pick and never lost the game.
With eleven wins. Right. And if he'd won eleven they also wouldn't have reached them. Bizarre year that way, but it doesn't touch the point that without Brady on hand a back up who did nothing before or after could take that team and coaching staff to 11 wins. That says something profound about the staff and team--about the system. So Brady is unquestionably the greatest system quarterback ever, as I nudged team Dan on earlier today.
Everyone has a story. And everyone has a bottom line. The bottom line was that Joe won one less ring than Tom, in less time, did it playing better ball, before the system was rigged for offensive production, and never threw a pick.
Hey, Brady is a great qb, but if Seattle runs the ball and Atlanta runs twice then kicks a fg Brady is likely three for seven and we're saying, "Man though, you have to admit getting to seven is pretty great and he's up there."
No, I'm saying Joe had less to work with early. Or, conversely, Brady came into a decent team with a great coach.
No. What's your point?
No, his opinion is less weighty because he's not being objective or looking at the numbers and context, really digging into both players. He's feeling his way through it. A serious examination of the point just doesn't justify it.
I'm not offering it as a strike, only as a context that can't be used as a plus. When you say a SB fifteen years apart all you're really noting is a longevity that the rules changes have made more likely. You'll see it again if you keep following the sport.
And none of them kicked the winning fgs on those first three rings. But Bill has already proven he can win without Tom. Could he have done as well without Brady? Who knows. I know he did extraordinary things with him. I also know he looked pretty much in form with Cassell under center and I know Cassell isn't a great qb. So, system of player? Or a little of both? That argument is an interesting one. I'd like to see them without Brady for about five years, with Bill coaching to win and make a point. It would make the picture clearer.
No, it wasn't. But that whole world also saw Atlanta throw away a game that was theirs to lose. Two runs, one kick. Baffling. Pete Carol should never stop thanking them for taking the heat off of his inexplicable call.
:think: The Pats jinx?
It's admitted that something like 85% of the time, their opponents beat themselves. This latest game was only the latest example.Yeah, five rings. That's not really an answer though. Trent Dilfer can't wave his in Marino's face and stake a claim to being better, but he has that ring. Dan doesn't.
No, that's not true. Trent Dilfer, among others, won a ring riding a team and contributing without being great at his position. Brady's numbers tell you that he wasn't. He was pretty good during the first two, like Dilfer. He had the greatest clutch kicker in NFL history and that fellow gave him the winning margin (and got him to a couple where he failed during the approach, as I've noted before in breaking down playoff runs) for his first three. The last of those three found him crossing the threshold into lower tier pro bowl form. Brady really didn't become the guy we see now until a couple of years later.
Well, no, though I could. As I noted, Montana had only 8 full seasons and two half seasons under center. Or, half the time he did lead them to the SB, where he never threw a pick and never lost the game.
With eleven wins. Right. And if he'd won eleven they also wouldn't have reached them. Bizarre year that way, but it doesn't touch the point that without Brady on hand a back up who did nothing before or after could take that team and coaching staff to 11 wins. That says something profound about the staff and team--about the system. So Brady is unquestionably the greatest system quarterback ever, as I nudged team Dan on earlier today.
Everyone has a story. And everyone has a bottom line. The bottom line was that Joe won one less ring than Tom, in less time, did it playing better ball, before the system was rigged for offensive production, and never threw a pick.
Hey, Brady is a great qb, but if Seattle runs the ball and Atlanta runs twice then kicks a fg Brady is likely three for seven and we're saying, "Man though, you have to admit getting to seven is pretty great and he's up there."
No, I'm saying Joe had less to work with early. Or, conversely, Brady came into a decent team with a great coach.
No. What's your point?
No, his opinion is less weighty because he's not being objective or looking at the numbers and context, really digging into both players. He's feeling his way through it. A serious examination of the point just doesn't justify it.
I'm not offering it as a strike, only as a context that can't be used as a plus. When you say a SB fifteen years apart all you're really noting is a longevity that the rules changes have made more likely. You'll see it again if you keep following the sport.
And none of them kicked the winning fgs on those first three rings. But Bill has already proven he can win without Tom. Could he have done as well without Brady? Who knows. I know he did extraordinary things with him. I also know he looked pretty much in form with Cassell under center and I know Cassell isn't a great qb. So, system of player? Or a little of both? That argument is an interesting one. I'd like to see them without Brady for about five years, with Bill coaching to win and make a point. It would make the picture clearer.
No, it wasn't. But that whole world also saw Atlanta throw away a game that was theirs to lose. Two runs, one kick. Baffling. Pete Carol should never stop thanking them for taking the heat off of his inexplicable call.
:think: The Pats jinx?
You should tape the NFL channel replay of SBs. A lot of one sided affairs where the winner beat the pants off the loser, but in close games it will always come down to mistakes and/or unbelievable plays. The Giants won theirs against the Pats with the latter. Ridiculous catches setting up victories you'd have bet against going in. I think the Seattle victor by the Pats was more the former, but I also think those were two great teams and the difference was going to be something like that, one way or another. It's hard to criticize when the margin is squeaky.
Or, I believe in the greatness of the Pats, in an amazing front office, ownership, coaching, and the players they put on the board. I also believe Tom Brady has made the case as the greatest of his generation, over my personal favorite and a qb I think would have done as well or better if he'd had the stability and talent around him, Peyton. I give Tom the nod because wishing doesn't make it so. I believe the bad habits Manning got into were directly related to what he had to work with and count on, but it is what it is and Tom has done more than any in that generation. And he's not done.
He's also not in the top 10 cumulative passer ratings for SB play. Number one? Joe Montana, 127 through 4 games.
The GOAT? That's the guy who was never my guy. That's Montana. And he never took the better team into that tent and lost. He marched down the field with time running out and put it in the end zone. I wonder if anyone will ever manage that again.
Imagine being a Hillary Clinton supporter and an Atlanta Falcon's fan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Status