Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

unJon

NFL 2018 III - Gronk is Better at Life Than You

Recommended Posts

My take on Montana was that he was a perfect fit for his system.  And he was teammates with the GOAT - Ronnie Lott.  He also played in the squankiest division in my experience - the NFC West was wretched for more than a decade in the 80's.  His teams could get seven division wins just by putting on their cleats (it was a 5 team division).

Had Dan Fouts played with a Ronnie Lott defense, his name would be one everyone's list.  He took a bunch of chances and threw too many picks, but he did so because a punt and a pick six were exactly the same result almost every year he played.  But if the Fouts teams had even an average defense, they'd have won multiple titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I saw an excellent break down last year comparing Brady and Rodgers and how their coaches scheme for them. Belichick schemes to get guys as open as possible as quick as possible. It both plays into Brady's strengths, his accuracy, ability to read a defense and quick decision making while eliminating some of his weakness, mainly just do to age and protecting him. It's why you see him make several quick reads and then just dump it off or get rid of it to live for the next down. McCarthy, OTOH, calls a lot of long developing plays in which no one helps each other get open. Each route exists in a vacuum. Green Bay's receivers must win their individual routes or Rodgers has to make an amazing play. It's why he's so deadly when he escapes the pocket because then the coverage break down, but it doesn't have to be that way. If you put Rodgers in Belichick's offense, he would make Green Bay Rodgers look like only a top 10 QB rather than the best in the game. It's such a disgrace, and then when you consider how little they've done to get talent around him, it's no wonder they haven't won a title since back when the team was actually competently built. And key in mind, that was when Rodgers was just really good, not the best in the league. The Packers might go more than a decade without even reaching the Super Bowl while having the best player in the game at the most important position. And Mike McCarthy is most to blame.

And as a Vikings fan, I thank him for it.

This is why I hope and pray that Baker isn't good enough this year to save Hue Jackson's job.  It's be an absolute shame if Mayfield has to deal with that dumb fuck for the next few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SpaceForce Tywin et al.  yes, it all is objective of course. Anytime someone does a ranking there is debate and I suspect that is why you did a ranking in the first place. The issue I have is putting Rodgers at the top, above Brady and a few others. Brady is who he is, he has damn near the same stats as all of the other "stat qb's" and has more championships than all of them, those two things do not normally go hand in hand. The Belichick factor is also kind of over rated since Belichick wasn't Belichickan(?) until he had Brady as his QB. Before Brady Belichick had a losing record as a head coach and was known as a defensive guru. It was only after Brady came along that his offensive "genius" came to be known, now why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dbunting said:

The Belichick factor is also kind of over rated since Belichick wasn't Belichickan(?) until he had Brady as his QB. Before Brady Belichick had a losing record as a head coach and was known as a defensive guru. It was only after Brady came along that his offensive "genius" came to be known, now why is that? 

Belichick was considered a "defensive guru" because his background was the special teams coach and defensive coordinator for the Giants teams that won two super bowls.  Belichick's first coaching stop was in Cleveland, where he went 37-45 or .451, which is unimpressive, until you consider that since he left in '95, no coach has been able to match that win rate, no coach has won a playoff game (which he did) and their combined win rate is .289.  So Belichick would be .162 better than the average Cleveland coach or worth 2.7 games per season. 

And that's just based on his time in Cleveland, without Brady. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s also a heavy dose of revisionist history with those first three Owls. Now don’t get me wrong, Brady was a very solid QB back then, but those teams were a lot more balanced and Brady was asked to do a lot less. He didn’t start becoming a stat monster until 2007. Prior to that he was a 2-1 TD-Int QB who averaged just above a 60% completion percentage. His stats spiked when everyone’s did……after they changed the rules. Go look at Brady’s first few seasons. Then go look at Marino’s. It’s not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

There’s also a heavy dose of revisionist history with those first three Owls. Now don’t get me wrong, Brady was a very solid QB back then, but those teams were a lot more balanced and Brady was asked to do a lot less. He didn’t start becoming a stat monster until 2007. Prior to that he was a 2-1 TD-Int QB who averaged just above a 60% completion percentage. His stats spiked when everyone’s did……after they changed the rules. Go look at Brady’s first few seasons. Then go look at Marino’s. It’s not even close.

Those first three titles were definitely driven by defense, but Brady showed in the SB against Carolina (when Rodney Harrison got hurt and Delhomme started bombing away) that he could take over and win a shootout if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Those first three titles were definitely driven by defense, but Brady showed in the SB against Carolina (when Rodney Harrison got hurt and Delhomme started bombing away) that he could take over and win a shootout if necessary.

I agree. This is why it’s often hard to have honest conversations about Brady though. Most Pats fans would lose their mind over what I said. Brady was absolutely a top 10 QB by the time he won his second ring, and he was closing in on top 5 after the third, but he wasn’t the same kind of QB as we view him today. There was a very stark jump in his statistics, and they occurred after the NFL changed the rules. That’s why it’s wrong to discredit guys like Favre and Marino (and others) who put up bonkers numbers at a time when it was hard to do so. Now average players are creeping into the top 10 all-time statistically when they’re not even top 25 all-time guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland had one year that seemed to be an anomaly compared to what happened before and after. He was there 4 other years and the record is 25-39 in those seasons, 6-10, 7-9, 7-9, 5-11.   He was also 5-11 in his first year in New England, pre Brady. I just think it's wrong to take away from Brady because of Belichick. 

Now, all this said and we can each just keep using stats to suit our view and we are all wrong and right since it's all just opinion when you get down to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I agree. This is why it’s often hard to have honest conversations about Brady though. Most Pats fans would lose their mind over what I said. Brady was absolutely a top 10 QB by the time he won his second ring, and he was closing in on top 5 after the third, but he wasn’t the same kind of QB as we view him today. There was a very stark jump in his statistics, and they occurred after the NFL changed the rules. That’s why it’s wrong to discredit guys like Favre and Marino (and others) who put up bonkers numbers at a time when it was hard to do so. Now average players are creeping into the top 10 all-time statistically when they’re not even top 25 all-time guys.

I've long thought that Belichick looked at the rules changes Polian whined for, and thought, "If that's the way they want to play it, fine. Let's exploit all that free space defenses have to give up now." And thus the Moss-Welker juggernaut was born.

I'm sure it wasn't actually that neat or simple, but Belichick had to realize that the rules changes meant he couldn't run the same kind of defenses as he used to, and he needed to put it more on the offense and his quarterback. The Pats haven't had really great defenses in the last ten years, except maybe the 2014 team that had Revis (the 2016 team gave up the fewest points that year, but they were helped by some terrible opponents). But even then I'd still take the McGinest/Law/Bruschi/Harrison defenses of 2003-04.

I'm glad you earlier used wording like Brady is the "most successful" quarterback in history, because that's a much more precise descriptor than "greatest" or "best." On sheer physical and mental tools, I'd call Rodgers the greatest. But Brady had the good sense to hitch his wagon to a brilliant asshole with chameleon-like game plans. His adaptability and willingness to play it however the coach wanted was the key.

Someone (was it you?) posed the question earlier, how Rodgers, Manning, and Brady would have done if they'd played for each other's coaches. Manning probably could have won big with all of them, true. I'm not sure he'd tolerate being coached by Belichick for almost two decades though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Belichick was considered a "defensive guru" because his background was the special teams coach and defensive coordinator for the Giants teams that won two super bowls.  Belichick's first coaching stop was in Cleveland, where he went 37-45 or .451, which is unimpressive, until you consider that since he left in '95, no coach has been able to match that win rate, no coach has won a playoff game (which he did) and their combined win rate is .289.  So Belichick would be .162 better than the average Cleveland coach or worth 2.7 games per season. 

And that's just based on his time in Cleveland, without Brady. 

That's not really true, because that Browns team became the Ravens and won the Super Bowl in 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I've long thought that Belichick looked at the rules changes Polian whined for, and thought, "If that's the way they want to play it, fine. Let's exploit all that free space defenses have to give up now." And thus the Moss-Welker juggernaut was born.

I'm sure it wasn't actually that neat or simple, but Belichick had to realize that the rules changes meant he couldn't run the same kind of defenses as he used to, and he needed to put it more on the offense and his quarterback. The Pats haven't had really great defenses in the last ten years, except maybe the 2014 team that had Revis (the 2016 team gave up the fewest points that year, but they were helped by some terrible opponents). But even then I'd still take the McGinest/Law/Bruschi/Harrison defenses of 2003-04.

Despite his rigid personality, his coaching style is anything but. Belichick is extremely flexible and has no problem evolving as the game does. The lack of that trait is what ends coach's careers. It's why Gruden might flame out quickly. 

Quote

I'm glad you earlier used wording like Brady is the "most successful" quarterback in history, because that's a much more precise descriptor than "greatest" or "best." On sheer physical and mental tools, I'd call Rodgers the greatest. But Brady had the good sense to hitch his wagon to a brilliant asshole with chameleon-like game plans. His adaptability and willingness to play it however the coach wanted was the key.

I felt like wording it that way would drive home the point I was trying to make. If you think being the most successful makes you the best, that's fine. It's a valid argument. But then that undercuts Jordan as the unquestioned GOAT of basketball, because he was not the most successful. I think it certainly needs to play an important role in your evaluation, but I don't view it as the end all be all. 

Quote

Someone (was it you?) posed the question earlier, how Rodgers, Manning, and Brady would have done if they'd played for each other's coaches. Manning probably could have won big with all of them, true. I'm not sure he'd tolerate being coached by Belichick for almost two decades though.

Yes, it was mean. It was a long rambling post. I use that as part of my evaluation across all sports because it provides you with a larger picture. You can do it across time periods too. What would Rodgers have looked like on the 90's Cowboys? How would Marino's game translate to today's game? Would Bradshaw even be able to play today?

You also have to consider the mentality of different eras. I don't beat Favre up too much for the interceptions because he played during a period when coaches were fine with risk taking. Now they're all risk adverse, so the ratios look wildly different. I think Favre would have thrown way less if he was drafted at the same time as Stafford, who might be his best modern comparison point. Stafford threw picks early on too, and then he got a coach who called safer plays. Coaches nowadays prefer to call short, safe plays these days rather than the more risk-reward type plays. It's probably smarter, but it is way less fun.  It's why Goff and Mahomes are so fun right now, because they're teams are running plays that are a big riskier, but the scheme is getting them open at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Despite his rigid personality, his coaching style is anything but. Belichick is extremely flexible and has no problem evolving as the game does. The lack of that trait is what ends coach's careers. It's why Gruden might flame out quickly. 

 

This is absolutely true.  Belichick adapts to whatever he sees on surveillance videos and audio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Someone (was it you?) posed the question earlier, how Rodgers, Manning, and Brady would have done if they'd played for each other's coaches. Manning probably could have won big with all of them, true. I'm not sure he'd tolerate being coached by Belichick for almost two decades though.

Wasn't Manning coached by John Fox for a while? I can't imagine that he'd have a problem with Belichick. 

And yeah, one of the best arguments for Manning is that he went to 4 different super bowls with 4 different coaches. That's pretty remarkable and indicates pretty clearly that he was the more talented part of that group. That said, Manning always ran the Manning offense, and that offense was largely static. Brady has had the same head coach, but has gone through massive offensive coordinator change and massive scheme change throughout his career, and has gotten better and better. I don't know if Brady would have been okay going to another team, but that's largely because I think he has a higher ceiling than Manning, and only someone like Belichick could trust him enough to get that out of him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

And just to play devil’s advocate, I think the best argument you can make for Brady over Manning is that if you needed one guy to win you a game to save your life, assuming everything else around them is equal, most people are taking Brady. His competitiveness and moxie far exceeds Manning’s.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Wasn't Manning coached by John Fox for a while? I can't imagine that he'd have a problem with Belichick. 

And yeah, one of the best arguments for Manning is that he went to 4 different super bowls with 4 different coaches. That's pretty remarkable and indicates pretty clearly that he was the more talented part of that group.

John Fox is one of those old-fashioned hard-asses but I don't know how Manning would have handled Belichick's infamously withering film review sessions where the QB gets dragged to show the team that everyone gets the same treatment. How many times would Manning tolerate the suggestions that the quarterback from Foxboro High could do his job better? And how would Manning stand up to Belichick's GM tendencies to deal away his QB's favorite players? Does Manning the Patriot stand for the Deion Branch trade? Does Manning stay satisfied with Belichick drafting 4th round projects or injury cases to be his WRs?

The point about four Super Bowl appearances under four coaches is a good one, but I refuse to count the fourth one, where Von Miller dragged Manning's corpse to the title.

ETA: what we've been saying also squares with stuff Brady has said about himself. He used to opine earlier in his career that he might have washed out of the league if he'd been drafted by, say, Arizona. He also said recently that Rodgers would have 7000 yards passing if he played for the Patriots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Lasr Storm said:

season on the line for the Giants. I think Phili will finish the season strong, but i think the G Men need this game more and will play with urgency.

Dude, the Giants are bad, Eli’s been washed and they made an incredibly bad draft pick unless they get a top tier QB in next year’s draft. There were two QBs in this draft that have generational potential and they passed on one of them for a player at the most disposable position in the sport.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

John Fox is one of those old-fashioned hard-asses but I don't know how Manning would have handled Belichick's infamously withering film review sessions where the QB gets dragged to show the team that everyone gets the same treatment. How many times would Manning tolerate the suggestions that the quarterback from Foxboro High could do his job better? And how would Manning stand up to Belichick's GM tendencies to deal away his QB's favorite players? Does Manning the Patriot stand for the Deion Branch trade? Does Manning stay satisfied with Belichick drafting 4th round projects or injury cases to be his WRs?

The point about four Super Bowl appearances under four coaches is a good one, but I refuse to count the fourth one, where Von Miller dragged Manning's corpse to the title.

ETA: what we've been saying also squares with stuff Brady has said about himself. He used to opine earlier in his career that he might have washed out of the league if he'd been drafted by, say, Arizona. He also said recently that Rodgers would have 7000 yards passing if he played for the Patriots.

Manning’s Broncos made two Owls, one because of him and one in spite of him.

The most damning argument about Manning’s two rings is that a defensive player was more responsible for them than he was. Never forget Bob Sanders. That Colts team was terrible on the defensive side until he went insane for 8-10 games.

As for how Manning would react to Belichick, I actually think they’d get along. They are a lot alike, and I think they’d recognize each other’s genius and make the most out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Dude, the Giants are bad, Eli’s been washed and they made an incredibly bad draft pick unless they get a top tier QB in next year’s draft. There were two QBs in this draft that have generational potential and they passed on one of them for a player at the most disposable position in the sport.  

im not ready to throw in the towel just yet. they lose tonight its a different story.

the words generational potential mean nothing. how many guys have had that potential and didnt amount to anything? a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×