NFL Divisional Playoffs: 3 games and Brady

[Sivin]

Since I am soon to return to Colorado and might get in touch with football again do you folks have any buzz on the Broncos new head coach? I have never heard of him.

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, Rockroi said:

I think I was afraid of a paper-tiger.  The Chiefs were eminently overrated and showed it last night.  The Steelers have issues (got to get into the endzone and Rothlesberger has been playing very sloppy as of late), but the Chiefs got their ass kicked up and down the field and they were utterly incapable of changing their destiny on O.

I'm pretty sure that had the Chiefs gotten a stop on that final meaningful third down and then the Steelers' punt was returned by Hill either for a touchdown or into field goal range (thus leading to a Chiefs victory), you would have been saying how your fears of the Chiefs have been realized.

Come to think of it, only one of the AFC teams played as one would expect: the Texans, who played well defensively and poorly offensively. All of the others weren't playing like themselves:

• The Patriots had 3 turnovers including 2 interceptions (the latter equals their grand total for the entire 16 games of this regular season). Their offensive line looked like it was made out of cardboard (how many times did the Texans knock Brady down or make him throw it away?) and, in general, their offense looked about as bad as the offense of a team that scores 34 points can be. The score looks like what one would expect from the betting lines, but the game was decidedly unlike the Patriots and if they play like this in the next game, they will lose.
• The Steelers eked out a win, but given that they have arguably the best running back in the game, one of the best receivers and a quarterback who has won 2 Superb Owls, it is really surprising that they couldn't score a single touchdown. Again, if they play like this against the Patriots, they will lose (has anyone ever beaten Tom Brady with nothing but field goals?).
• The Chiefs have already been discussed: of their stars, the fastest man in the league, Hill, was mainly useful as a decoy and arguably the best tight end (not counting the injured), Kelce, was mainly notable for after-the-play antics.

[Mexal]

34 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Since I am soon to return to Colorado and might get in touch with football again do you folks have any buzz on the Broncos new head coach? I have never heard of him.

Good defensive coach. Bengals players loved him when he was here. I know Marvin Lewis thought he was going to be a HC sooner rather than later. Teaches good technique, handles players well and keeps it simple.

[sperry]

4 hours ago, Triskan said:

Another thing to think about:  if the Pats could pull this out Brady would have a 5th ring and no longer be tied with any other QB in that department which would bolster his claim to best of all time.  Hell, how many AFC title games has he been to?  Without looking it up I'm guessing this is like 10 or 11.  

 

Brady is only keeping that GOAT title warm for Rodgers.

[Jaime L]

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm not a Colts fan, to count getting to a conference championship game as an achievement, but as they say, quantity is its own quality.

I could get down with a "Permanent AFC Finalist" banner for the Irsay trolling. 

Was gonna say there's no team that ever had a prolonged run like this but the 49ers from '81-'98 is pretty comparable. And they got 5 rings out of it. Think the Patriots need one more ring to plausibly make their case for "most dominant team ever" claim.  At least in the modern era.

Feels like they already have record imaginable but the more you look there's still a ton to sort out legacy-wise. 

[Nictarion]

7 hours ago, Mexal said:

I'm rooting for either the Packers or Falcons against the AFC. Don't care which one. Both teams are likeable.

Same here. I'd especially like to see Atlanta take it. I'm sick of the same teams winning it all the time. 

[dbunting]

3 hours ago, Jaime L said:

I could get down with a "Permanent AFC Finalist" banner for the Irsay trolling. 

Was gonna say there's no team that ever had a prolonged run like this but the 49ers from '81-'98 is pretty comparable. And they got 5 rings out of it. Think the Patriots need one more ring to plausibly make their case for "most dominant team ever" claim.  At least in the modern era.

Feels like they already have record imaginable but the more you look there's still a ton to sort out legacy-wise. 

I could say the Cowboys from 1966 - 1983 are as close as well. They made the playoffs every year during that stretch except 1974 (8-4 that season BTW), avg 10.8 wins per regular season (half of those were 14 game seasons). Went to 12 Conference championship games, 5 SB's, winning 2 (damn Steelers!!!)  Only difference is the SB titles.

In the beginning of the Dallas stretch they had Green Bay during it's hey day, Lombardi and co. to deal with before Green Bay faded to nothing until Farve came along. Then in the middle of the run they had Pittsburgh dominate for 6-7 years before also fading away. At the end it was the emergence of San Francisco. During those three other teams "dynasties'"  Dallas was still right there with each of them, outlasting two of the three before falling off themselves for a decade. The funny thing is that Dallas was also the team the ended San Francisco's run in the 90's when Dallas won 3 more SB's. 

 

Now, all that said, I am a Cowboys fan and biased! I would not list that Dallas era as most dominant ever though. I would say San Fran and New England runs have been higher level because of the quantity Super Bowl wins.

Had Jerry Jones left Jimmy Johnson alone we could be having a different discussion about a different Dallas run!

[DanteGabriel]

16 hours ago, Rockroi said:

I think I was afraid of a paper-tiger.  The Chiefs were eminently overrated and showed it last night.  The Steelers have issues (got to get into the endzone and Rothlesberger has been playing very sloppy as of late), but the Chiefs got their ass kicked up and down the field and they were utterly incapable of changing their destiny on O.  

TL;DR Andy Reid and Alex Smith Andy Reid-ed and Alex Smith-ed up this game.  

And Kelce is a tool. bag.  

There seems to be something in the Chiefs' DNA. Their loss on Sunday brought me back to their playoff losses of the mid-2000s, the Priest Holmes-Trent Green years. They were a quality team that just couldn't get it done in the playoffs, and they were a constant source of frustration for someone who wanted them to beat the Colts.

Dick Vermeil's Chiefs couldn't get it done in the 2003-04 playoffs, losing a shootout with the Colts by basically being the first team to punt. Then Herm Edwards' Chiefs team in 2006-07 couldn't capitalize on Manning throwing three picks to Ty Law, in the year Manning finally won with the Colts.

The Chiefs are built to disappoint.

[Joe Pesci]

http://wewontmoveyouchargers.com/

So apparently this is growing into a thing. Hilarious.

And at the Clippers game last night they put up the new logo for the Chargers on the scoreboard, and it was loudly booed. What a hot mess...

[Rockroi]

12 hours ago, sperry said:

Brady is only keeping that GOAT title warm for Rodgers.

Its certainly possible.  Rodgers' numbers are incredible; his TD to INT ratio is otherworldly - 297 to 72; its a 4.125 TD to INT ratio.  That is absurd.  Brady's is also other worldly - 456 to 152 (exactly 3).  Rodgers' career passer rating is better (104 v 97).  And I have already commented on Rodgers' post season numbers.  This is all great.  But Rodgers has a problem.

What year did Rodgers enter the League?  You would think, "Oh, they won the Super Bowl in 2010 so... 2007... 2008?  

Aaron Rodgers was drafted in 2005.  He was a bench warmer to Favre for three seasons.  That just puts him THAT much further behind Brady's career accomplishments (4 SBs v. 1 .... for now).  Rodgers has been to TWO Conf championship games (v ELEVEN for Brady).  Rodgers is a tremendous QB but he may just not have enough time to catch up to Brady.  Do we all think Rodgers will go to FIVE more Superbowls between now and the end of his career?  And win three of them?  He may be capable, but winning ONE Superbowl is REALLY HARD!   This is not to say that Rodgers- talent wise - is not as good or better than Brady, just that in a GOAT discussion, this will be said and it hurts Rodgers' chances.  

Also, time is a PITA.  Not that Rodgers is going to get old tomorrow, but his weapons will have to fight through injuries, salary cap and trade issues as well as plain all drop-off.  Also... I think his coach is bad.  Mistakes will be made. There are just no guarantees in this league and as time marches on, things start slowing.  Again, not to say Rodgers will get old tomorrow, but things change and usually not for the better.  

Regardless, I think Brady is the QB GOAT for right now (Montana, btw, was stupid good).  Rodgers has some climbing to do.  Right now, he's behind Brady, Montana, Elway and probably Manning (Peyton).  After that its anyone's guess.  

 

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

There seems to be something in the Chiefs' DNA. Their loss on Sunday brought me back to their playoff losses of the mid-2000s, the Priest Holmes-Trent Green years. They were a quality team that just couldn't get it done in the playoffs, and they were a constant source of frustration for someone who wanted them to beat the Colts.

Dick Vermeil's Chiefs couldn't get it done in the 2003-04 playoffs, losing a shootout with the Colts by basically being the first team to punt. Then Herm Edwards' Chiefs team in 2006-07 couldn't capitalize on Manning throwing three picks to Ty Law, in the year Manning finally won with the Colts.

The Chiefs are built to disappoint.

And don't forget the Marty Schottenheimer Chiefs; under Marty (a figure of tragedy if there ever was one) the Chiefs were "one and done" FIVE times and in the two years they went deeper, the Chiefs were 3-2, making it to one Conf championship game (where they lost to the Bills) to bring Marty's KC Chiefs to a impressively terrible 3-7 in the playoffs.  

The Chiefs are a constant reminder that being in the playoffs is not an indication of relevance.  

[Fez]

I'd still put Montana at number one, just because the rules were so much harder for QBs back then. But Brady's accomplishment are so fucking much at this point that I think he's pretty clearly ahead of the P. Manning, Elway, Marino trifecta.

Rodgers is great, but I don't think his cumulative stats or career accomplishments puts him on the very highest tier of QBs yet. He's got the talent to reach that point, but he has to actually do it; and not playing for his first three seasons definitely puts a dent in his time frame (although on the other hand staying fresh for that much longer will probably extend his career somewhat).

[Jaime L]

6 hours ago, dbunting said:

I could say the Cowboys from 1966 - 1983 are as close as well. They made the playoffs every year during that stretch except 1974 (8-4 that season BTW), avg 10.8 wins per regular season (half of those were 14 game seasons). Went to 12 Conference championship games, 5 SB's, winning 2 (damn Steelers!!!)  Only difference is the SB titles.

In the beginning of the Dallas stretch they had Green Bay during it's hey day, Lombardi and co. to deal with before Green Bay faded to nothing until Farve came along. Then in the middle of the run they had Pittsburgh dominate for 6-7 years before also fading away. At the end it was the emergence of San Francisco. During those three other teams "dynasties'"  Dallas was still right there with each of them, outlasting two of the three before falling off themselves for a decade. The funny thing is that Dallas was also the team the ended San Francisco's run in the 90's when Dallas won 3 more SB's. 

 

Now, all that said, I am a Cowboys fan and biased! I would not list that Dallas era as most dominant ever though. I would say San Fran and New England runs have been higher level because of the quantity Super Bowl wins.

Had Jerry Jones left Jimmy Johnson alone we could be having a different discussion about a different Dallas run!

Yeah GB in the 60s, Dallas in the 60s-70s and Pittsburgh in the 70s can make their cases as well. Before my time so I can't comment fully. But do think the 49ers ushered in the modern game with the WCO in the 80s.

33 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

Further behind Brady's career accomplishments (4 SBs v. 1 .... for now).  Rodgers has been to TWO Conf championship games (v ELEVEN for Brady).  Rodgers is a tremendous QB but he may just not have enough time to catch up to Brady.  Do we all think Rodgers will go to FIVE more Superbowls between now and the end of his career?  And win three of them?  He may be capable, but winning ONE Superbowl is REALLY HARD!   This is not to say that Rodgers- talent wise - is not as good or better than Brady, just that in a GOAT discussion, this will be said and it hurts Rodgers' chances.  

All true. Except also need to include Bill Belichick vs. Highly Successful NFL coach Mike McCarthy in the analysis. Packers got eliminated the last two years in OT and pretty sure it would've been 3 in a row if Aaron Rodgers didn't override the playcall with some backyard-football-Brett-Favre-in-wrangler-jeans bullshit. But I think he knew deep down in his heart of hearts McCarthy would find a way to blow this. Every Packer fan certainly did. He needed to initiate the override sequence before McCarthy cost him another potential ring. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Rockroi said:

The Chiefs are a constant reminder that being in the playoffs is not an indication of relevance.  

 Obligatory...

 

/Great Hoogly-Moogly

[sperry]

Context matters. Brady has been a part of the best organization with the best coach. So his team's greater success is not surprising to me. In fact, when he won his first 3 super bowls, he wasn't one of the top 2 or 3 QBs in the league. He joined that group after that run.

 

Rodgers doesn't have the pure volume, but he's got a 9 year sample size. This isn't a Terrell Davis 3 year prime. Recent history tells us that the next 5 years for Rodgers are likely to be among his best, at least tracking the careers of his HOF predecessors, Brady, Manning, and Brees.

[Rockroi]

27 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

All true. Except also need to include Bill Belichick vs. Highly Successful NFL coach Mike McCarthy in the analysis. Packers got eliminated the last two years in OT and pretty sure it would've been 3 in a row if Aaron Rodgers didn't override the playcall with some backyard-football-Brett-Favre-in-wrangler-jeans bullshit. But I think he knew deep down in his heart of hearts McCarthy would find a way to blow this. Every Packer fan certainly did. He needed to initiate the override sequence before McCarthy cost him another potential ring. 

Yeah, this is where I can't really comment because it will sound like I am bad mouthing Belichcik.  (Also, like all fans, Belichick has a picture of one of my children pasted on the ceiling of his office with her name, school schedule and whereabouts so if I get out of line he knows where to go... but I've said too much).  What I can I say, "Yeah, but Bill Belichick is not THAT good of a head coach?"  That's not happening. 

What I am saying is that not every other QB should get a "bump" because their head coach was only "above average."  Belichick does a lot to give Brady the chance to succeed.  Belichick opens Brady's window to success wider than most other coaches do their QBs.  But are other coaches a drag on their QBs?  If so... don't we think Rodgers would have said something?  Remember, this is Aaron Rodgers who has not spoken to his parents IN YEARS.  The guy has opinions.  

And then you have to factor in just how much of Belichick's success is from Brady (1 playoff appearance in the 7 seasons Belichick has had - 5 in CLE and 2 in NE - without Brady).  That's an old discussion.  

I think even if we "handicap" Brady with Belichick the guy performed beyond the bounds of what we would expect in this day and age.  That should keep him as the GOAT for the foreseeable future.  

[Rockroi]

6 minutes ago, sperry said:

Context matters. Brady has been a part of the best organization with the best coach. So his team's greater success is not surprising to me. In fact, when he won his first 3 super bowls, he wasn't one of the top 2 or 3 QBs in the league. He joined that group after that run.

Meh.  Russel Wilson's Defense was the major part of Seattle's explosion.  He has still only been able to experience a portion of Brady's success.  

And are we going to argue that the Packers are not a well-run organization?  They are a great team and front office; have had stability and foresight over many other teams.  

Again, much like I don't think Rodgers should get a big bump merely because his head coach was only "above average" I don't think Rodgers should get a bump because his team was only "In the Top Five" over the last 10 seasons.  

[sperry]

14 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

Meh.  Russel Wilson's Defense was the major part of Seattle's explosion.  He has still only been able to experience a portion of Brady's success.  

And are we going to argue that the Packers are not a well-run organization?  They are a great team and front office; have had stability and foresight over many other teams.  

Again, much like I don't think Rodgers should get a big bump merely because his head coach was only "above average" I don't think Rodgers should get a bump because his team was only "In the Top Five" over the last 10 seasons.  

 

 

No, what I'm arguing is that Super Bowl titles are not a particularly good stat for evaluating a QB.  Brady has been a top three QB in the league for the past decade, but over that time frame has only won one Super Bowl. That's not a strike against him, it's an acknowledgement of both the randomness of a one game playoff format and the importance of your surrounding cast.

 

Another example: The three best single season quarterback performances in NFL history, in chronological order:  Brady 2007, Rodgers 2011, Peyton Manning 2013.  Zero super bowl titles.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Well maybe we'll get a Rodgers on Brady Superb Owl that might shed some light on the situation. 

[Fez]

44 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

 

No, what I'm arguing is that Super Bowl titles are not a particularly good stat for evaluating a QB.  Brady has been a top three QB in the league for the past decade, but over that time frame has only won one Super Bowl. That's not a strike against him, it's an acknowledgement of both the randomness of a one game playoff format and the importance of your surrounding cast.

 

Another example: The three best single season quarterback performances in NFL history, in chronological order:  Brady 2007, Rodgers 2011, Peyton Manning 2013.  Zero super bowl titles.

Is anyone (other than a few gasbags on TV) still arguing that Super Bowl titles are a good stat? After all, its pretty widely acknowledged that Marino was one of the greatest QBs ever; and almost no one actually argues that Terry Bradshaw was better than average.

But Brady's consistently top-level season stats, individual great games, and overall playoffs record speaks to how great he is. The fact that his team has made the playoffs every year but two of them, IRRC, is partly due to how historically weak the AFC East has been besides the Pats since 2002 (The Jets had a couple good years, and so did the Dolphins, but overall its been pathetic since the Colts left.) But its not like he has a long series of no-win playoff appearances, he makes the most of almost all those appearances. The Super Bowl wins are just the cherry on top of the shit sandwich he leaves for us fans of divisional "rivals."

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 hours ago, Fez said:

However, Big Ben's a rapist, so fuck the Steelers.

I agree he's an awful person, but he's also one of the most entertaining players in the league. It's frustrating.

22 hours ago, Triskan said:

Another thing to think about:  if the Pats could pull this out Brady would have a 5th ring and no longer be tied with any other QB in that department which would bolster his claim to best of all time.  Hell, how many AFC title games has he been to?  Without looking it up I'm guessing this is like 10 or 11.  

It will secure his legacy as the most successful of all time, but not the best. Frankly I think he isn't even the second best QB of his era. (I got Rodgers at 1 and Manning at 2, but this debate is so subjective, there is no correct answer). 

22 hours ago, Rockroi said:

 

Not to say that the Pats or Streep do not deserve to be there; the Pats do (and so does Streep, but that's a lot more subjective) its just that people HAVE to be sick of it by now.  I cannot ask people to root for something they are sick of. 

 

I think this is an issue of when you're experiencing it. With the passage of time I'm pretty sure a lot of people would look back and have a founder view of the Pats' dominance over the last 15 years. We shall see.