It's still Pittsburgh in the SB era (6 x trophies), until someone can tie their hardware, and then surpass them. (Tie goes to who got there first, of course.)
NFL 2017
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
'Interesting listening to Roma's commentary on Brady. His input is the most pertinent of anybody in announcing. If we take him and his expertise at his word, we'd have to say that the reason Brady is as good as he is, is because he does something exceptional in just about every drive, at least once if not more.
I actually really like Romo as an analyst during games.
And, I agree with him about Brady also.
He'll get better. There's no questioning he has the football part down, but translating it for the average fan is going to be a work in progress, as is learning when and how to interact with his booth partner. He steps on them too often, but that's just a rookie for you.
The games...the Titans were 5 shy of what I thought they'd put up and the Pats scored one more td than I thought they would, in part because of Tennessee's slumps during play, but the outcome was never in question.
I had the Philly/Atlanta game a toss up, which meant take the Eagles to upset the spread. That worked out. I did think the Steelers would win (and they should have) in a closer contest than the line indicated, so if I'd had money on it I'd have been happy, but as it stands I'm disappointed by what that will probably mean for the AFC Championship game.
I was disappointed for Ben and company. The two 4th down calls...if either or both is a qb sneak we're talking about a different result today, I believe. And of course Ben hurt his guys too. Handed Jacksonville the difference in pts, even if he almost made up for it. I expect Haley will be out over the off season.
Had Minnesota a 1 pt fav and felt great about that game until the last 3 minutes yo-yoed everything to pieces. I suspect the better team to play Philly won this contest. I don't have as much faith in the Saints offense in those climes.
The early line has the championship round:
Jac @ NE -9: So the oddsmakers don't give Jacksonville much of a chance, even with that defense and the coach who beat Brady and Co. in two SBs...maybe if he had a Manning under center. The Steelers game poked holes in the Jag defense, so it's likely their offense is going to have to compete. And they can do that, but all things being equal, does anyone really believe Brady will be out dueled by Bortles, even on a good day?
Take away a couple of stupid plays, a fumble by Ben that handed Jacksonville a score and the Steelers are making a serious challenge. This one feels more like a coronation in Foxborough.
Min -3.5 @ Phi: at least this game appears to be a closer contest, with the line makers making Minnesota the prohibitive road favorite, and by more than a fg. Fuel for the disrespected Eagles? I'm inclined to think so and take the odd underdog in this one. Minnesota needed a miracle to send the Saints home a loser even after New Orleans spotted them pts.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
It will be really hard, if not impossible, for the Steelers to replace Big Ben. He will certainly be ushered into the Hall of Fame and the Steelers were lucky to get him in the draft.
Don't expect that kind of luck again!
:idunno: Coughlin's not their coach, he's the VP. And as coach of Jacksonville, he lost to NE in the tournament before. It's only with NYG that he's had any success against the Pats.
Who gameplanned beating Brady twice. You think that resource will go unplummed?
Let's clear up the chronology a little. Coughlin was brought in to be the founding coach of the franchise and in short order had them competitive. They won 4 games as a start up. The next year, he took them to the playoffs where they upset the Denver Broncos at home in one of the bigger playoff upsets in history. They lost the Championship round to New England 20-6...in their second year. You think those teams were even?
The uptick continued. In 1998 the Jags beat New England 25-10, so you missed that one. Then he beat them twice with the Giants. He's probably one of the few coaches/people who aren't intimidated by Bill and company. I'm not sure it will be enough to overcome his qb, but you never know.
If you mean unplumbed I suppose not, but there's a difference between someone in the front office feeding tips to the coaches, and the coaches themselves. Coughlin the man inspired his teams those championship years, and without him actually on the sidelines with the headset on . . . nah. I'm not saying this game's a lock for the Pats but if they falter it won't be because of Coughlin.
I thought he was there when Brunell was their QB, and that Brunell played against Belichick+Brady. Oh well. 1998 was pre-Belichick+Brady. (Brady's not that old :chuckle:.)Let's clear up the chronology a little. Coughlin was brought in to be the founding coach of the franchise and in short order had them competitive. They won 4 games as a start up. The next year, he took them to the playoffs where they upset the Denver Broncos at home in one of the bigger playoff upsets in history. They lost the Championship round to New England 20-6...in their second year. You think those teams were even?
The uptick continued. In 1998 the Jags beat New England 25-10, so you missed that one.
And I agree, but again, he's not the coach.
Big Ben announced that he will be back next year.
Of the last 24 AFC Championship Games, the Patriots or Steelers (or both) have been in 19 of them.
1994 - Steelers
1995 - Steelers
1996 - Patriots
1997 - Steelers
2001 - Steelers & Patriots
2003 - Patriots
2004 - Steelers & Patriots
2005 - Steelers
2006 - Patriots
2007 - Patriots
2008 - Steelers
2010 - Steelers
2011 - Patriots
2012 - Patriots
2013 - Patriots
2014 - Patriots
2015 - Patriots
2016 - Steelers & Patriots
2017 - Patriots
1994 - Steelers
1995 - Steelers
1996 - Patriots
1997 - Steelers
2001 - Steelers & Patriots
2003 - Patriots
2004 - Steelers & Patriots
2005 - Steelers
2006 - Patriots
2007 - Patriots
2008 - Steelers
2010 - Steelers
2011 - Patriots
2012 - Patriots
2013 - Patriots
2014 - Patriots
2015 - Patriots
2016 - Steelers & Patriots
2017 - Patriots
Last edited:
Hitting the m instead of the b really didn't make you wonder, did it? :chuckle: I'm stretched thin for time so you'll see things like that from me for a bit, I suppose. No time to reread and I always write on the fly.
Sure, but I don't think Coughlin as a play caller was as important as his steering. For that matter, just being able to lay out the battle plan would be an asset. Comparing approaches. That sort of thing. Not sure it will be enough, but it's better than nothing.
I'd say if it's close anything could be the difference, and every advantage matters.
He was, for the first several years of the franchise.
True, but he was playing a team that went to the SB without Brady. Not as good with Bledsoe as they eventually were with Brady, but then the first year Brady won a ring he wasn't tearing up the world of the NFL either. He was just a very good qb on a rocket path to stardom.
I've said before that his game coaching the BC Eagles against the, at the time, the team that had just beat the number one team in the country, Notre Dame, was remarkable, as remarkable as Brady's sudden rise in 2001 when he was granted his chance after Bledsoe was injured early in the season.
No fan thinks that Bledsoe and Brady are comparable, so perhaps I'll just bow out of this now, while I'm not not ahead yet.
Because he was just a very good QB.
His rookie year? Yep. Very good. Not great. His qbr for his first year in the league as a starter was 86.5 with 18 tds against 12 picks. That's fine, but it's not great. The next year it was 85.7, with 28 tds and 14 picks, trending in the right direction. His third year it was 85.9, with 23 td and 12 int. A really good qb at that point, but he hadn't arrived at his position. That began in his fourth. He had an excellent team coupled with arguably the best clutch kicker we've seen early.I've said before that his game coaching the BC Eagles against the, at the time, the team that had just beat the number one team in the country, Notre Dame, was remarkable, as remarkable as Brady's sudden rise in 2001 when he was granted his chance after Bledsoe was injured early in the season.
No fan thinks that Bledsoe and Brady are comparable, so perhaps I'll just bow out of this now, while I'm not not ahead yet.
Because he was just a very good QB.
He's on the verge of possibly winning another third SB in four seasons. I didn't even know that "a third SB in four seasons" could be pluralized, he's reinventing what it means to be a great QB.
He's legendary, he's a legend. In almost every career statistical category, he's "lapping" other passers. The thought that another passer would equal or best some of his stats is becoming humorous, there's almost no time left for some of us to even live long enough to witness him being knocked off the perch he continues to build.
His wins and losses speak for themselves, no narrative needed anymore, if it was ever needed before. Wins and losses are the primary statistics of this and every game---we play games to win, to suggest otherwise is to be dishonest or warped, and the individual stats are supporting stats. If Montana had lost his four SB appearances with identical individual statistics nobody would be talking about him as the GOAT.
'Same can be said for Brady, if he were 0-7 in SBs instead of 5-2, he'd've only surpassed Jim Kelly.
And his individual statistics trended steadily downward 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. The beginning of the end.
Except no.
He's special. I think there are a number of ways to speak to greatness. To me he's the ultimate system qb and the Jabbar of the NFL. I can't think of anyone who has been as good as he is for as long as he's managed it. Just remarkable.
He's got competition even within his generation, so I won't go that far, but again, being compared with Jabbar is pretty special. Even if it's not quite the same as being called Jordan (though I still prefer Magic using another metric of greatness, versatility). If he plays as long as he means to he could end up with all the records, though he'll have taken longer to get them, which is a consideration.
I agree when we're talking about greatest teams, but not for players. What I mean is that Russell wasn't the greatest because he won more NBA championships. I don't know anyone arguing for him as the NBA GOAT, but how a player performs in a championship game is important. Jim Kelly was amazing until he got to the SB and then he lost a gear, at least after the first loss.
Or, you can play a meh game and win a SB, like Peyton did in his last. And you can play great and lose a SB, as Brady has done. I don't elevate or penalize for team play, so Dilfer hasn't passed Marino on my depth chart.
I would, unless he padded his stats in lop sided wins, but I agree that it makes a general impression.
EDIT: And to be clear, it's really, really, really, really unlikely that the guy who touches the ball the most on offense has 100 plus ratings across four SBs and loses most of them, so it's a strained hypothetical.
If he played the same way in those games I'd have the same opinion of him that I do now, only I'd call him star crossed in a historical way, an expanded version of Marino or Manning, who could elevate teams that largely didn't belong in the deep end of the playoff pool. Fortunately for Tom he never has had that problem. He's playing for my favorite coach of all time and Bill and company have given him solid all around teams or better to work with, which is why when Brady went down for a year they still managed to win 11 games.
I don't think you can characterize that stretch as a decline, except for one year, which would make it more of an anomaly than anything else. 2010: 111.0 rating. That's just ridiculous for a season. Anyone comes down off 100 plus. No one sustains it for more than two or three seasons at a stretch. Manning did it for three twice. Brees and Brady have only just (using this year) managed to do it once. It's just ridiculously rare, so I don't think we can think of coming off that as evidence of a decline, early or late.
Anything over 100 is remarkable. Heck, the 90s are great. 2011 was 105 for Tom, still gaudy. 2012 was 98.7, still above his average. The next year he hit the respectable high 80s. The year after that he course corrected to his average in the high 90s. One year, maybe next, the decline will come, but I'm rooting for him to keep going as long as he can. It's just fun to watch as a fan of the game, even if I'm not a particular fan (rooting) of him or his team.
Last edited:
100+ rating years for qbs
Peyton
04: 121
05: 104
06: 101
12: 105
13: 115
14: 101
90s: 7 times
You could argue his 2003-2014, eleven year run is the greatest by any qb in the history of the game. Once Peyton hit his stride in 03 with that near miss 99 the closest he came to dropping out of the 90s + was in 2010, his last in Indy, when a banged up Manning still ended the year with that 91. After a year of recovery from the neck injuries that had begun to sap his strength and probably had something to do with his last Colts performance, Manning rebounded with three 100+ seasons before the wheels fell off.
Brady
07: 117
10: 111
11: 105
15: 102
16: 112
17: 102
90s: 5 times
Posted his second best rating on the year at age 39, which is pretty impressive. Absent injury and given how well he plays at his advanced age, especially during the earlier part of the season, he could own nearly all the records before he's done.
Brees
04: 104
09: 109
11: 110
13: 104
15: 101
16: 101
17: 103
90s: 4 times.
In most eras he'd be in the conversation in a way he hasn't been despite playing unbelievable football for quite a while. One of the greatest even so.
Rodgers
09: 103
10: 101
11: 122
12: 108
14: 112
16: 104
90s: 3 times.
One of 2 quarterback to manage to break 100 four straight years while playing in double digit games. Highest total average qbr in the NFL and is arguably the most talented qb to take the field presently. If his health doesn't become an issue he may make a case for deserving more consideration within the pantheon.
Young
91: 101
92: 107
93: 101
94: 112
97: 104
98: 101
90s: 2 times.
When he was healthy and starting double digit games, outside of Tampa, he was golden. Nothing below the 90s and only that twice. So, one awful year in TB then 6 healthy years above the astounding line and two in the still great end of the pool. Absent concussions and with a couple of the years he wasted on the bench waiting in SF, who knows how he'd be seen. Same problem as Rodgers and same curious slight.
TBC...
Peyton
04: 121
05: 104
06: 101
12: 105
13: 115
14: 101
90s: 7 times
You could argue his 2003-2014, eleven year run is the greatest by any qb in the history of the game. Once Peyton hit his stride in 03 with that near miss 99 the closest he came to dropping out of the 90s + was in 2010, his last in Indy, when a banged up Manning still ended the year with that 91. After a year of recovery from the neck injuries that had begun to sap his strength and probably had something to do with his last Colts performance, Manning rebounded with three 100+ seasons before the wheels fell off.
Brady
07: 117
10: 111
11: 105
15: 102
16: 112
17: 102
90s: 5 times
Posted his second best rating on the year at age 39, which is pretty impressive. Absent injury and given how well he plays at his advanced age, especially during the earlier part of the season, he could own nearly all the records before he's done.
Brees
04: 104
09: 109
11: 110
13: 104
15: 101
16: 101
17: 103
90s: 4 times.
In most eras he'd be in the conversation in a way he hasn't been despite playing unbelievable football for quite a while. One of the greatest even so.
Rodgers
09: 103
10: 101
11: 122
12: 108
14: 112
16: 104
90s: 3 times.
One of 2 quarterback to manage to break 100 four straight years while playing in double digit games. Highest total average qbr in the NFL and is arguably the most talented qb to take the field presently. If his health doesn't become an issue he may make a case for deserving more consideration within the pantheon.
Young
91: 101
92: 107
93: 101
94: 112
97: 104
98: 101
90s: 2 times.
When he was healthy and starting double digit games, outside of Tampa, he was golden. Nothing below the 90s and only that twice. So, one awful year in TB then 6 healthy years above the astounding line and two in the still great end of the pool. Absent concussions and with a couple of the years he wasted on the bench waiting in SF, who knows how he'd be seen. Same problem as Rodgers and same curious slight.
TBC...
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
OK Sports Fans!
At New England -7.5 Jacksonville
Minnesota -3 At Philadelphia
I take Jacksonsville and the points. The Patriot's luck is going to finally end.
And I take the Vikes and give the three points! The Eagles ain't got a chance!
At New England -7.5 Jacksonville
Minnesota -3 At Philadelphia
I take Jacksonsville and the points. The Patriot's luck is going to finally end.
And I take the Vikes and give the three points! The Eagles ain't got a chance!
Big day tomorrow Jerry. Oops, today. I always watch the championship games and the Super Bowl. I like picking without the point spread and I'll take the Pats and the Vikings.The Patriots should repeat, no problem.
Bill is being very complimentary of the Jags, but he knows the truth. The truth is that Jacksonville is inconsistent, to be charitable. They couldn't find the endzone with flares at home against the Bills, and their defense saved them. Then their vaunted defense fell apart against the Steelers and their offense saved them. So they've gotten by on uneven performances against a) a relative light weight and b) another team with consistency issues.
Neither of those things will be present in Foxborough and against New England. Absent Brady's injury being more debilitating this one isn't in question. It would take a sub par New England playing a Jacksonville team firing on all cylinders to make this a real contest. Is that possible? Yes. Is it probable? No. I like New England by 10 or better absent the above.
is that it took a completely silent offensive first half COUPLED with a miracle defensive mistake to advance the Vikes ov
Minnesota is, I think, 2nd against the run and pass. Philly is best against the run, but 17th against the pass. Meaning that Case will have a chance to make his, because it doesn't look like either team is going to run effectively. For Philly to win Noles will have to have the game he's capable of instead of that wonky other Noles that shows up. And that will be the difference, I think. It's more likely that Keenum plays a decent game and does just enough to put them in position to win against the 17th ranked pass defense of the Eagles than it is Noles will catch fire with one of his best against the Vikings secondary.
I like the Vikings.
I think you're half right.
