NFL: Super Bowl, offseason and quarterback musical chairs

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Don't know if Brady wants it, but I could see the Chargers wanting it; though from a business perspective more than a football one. No one cares about the Chargers in LA, they simply don't have fans. They've been playing in a stadium with only 27,000 capacity and haven't been able to sell it out. Bringing in Brady could make a big splash; at the very least the Patriots fans in LA would buy tickets to the games. Bill Simmons might become a Chargers fan.

I can see the business side making sense.  I'm just not sure that Brady really wants to attach itself to a team as dysfunctional and underachieving as the Chargers for his remaining years. 

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I dont see brady as ending gracefully. I see him playing until they bench him, agitating for a trade, and doing it again. Unless he wins a superbowl. Maybe then he'd go out. 

I think he would want to prove to others that it was him and not belichick who was the big deal. And in that way, I think he would want to go to a contender, a team who is good to great except for a QB. The titans are like that. They might be the only one. 

I still think the Titans aren't really that talented, and overachieved last year.  They have a very good O line and running back, and very average talent everywhere else.  Brady on the Titans is less than 50/50 to even make the divisional round, let alone win the Owl. 

7 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Broncos

Broncos seemed pretty happy with Drew Lock's 5 game sample thus far.  Doubt they're looking to screw him over with a veteran, although they do love old qbs there. 

[Jace, Extat]

My bad. I spelled San Francisco with an 'N' like a dummy. 

Yeah, Gimmy J got them to the Superbowl by throwing 27 passes. Tom Brady threw 37 against the Titans. 

Win or lose on Sunday the 49ers can trade that Brad Johnson competency achiever to some slapdick organization like the Panthers for some nice picks and then bring Twammy home.

[Jaime L]

Just gonna leave this right here. 

[Jace, Extat]

47 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

Just gonna leave this right here. 

Kyle Shannahan actually understands that you can build a football team that isn't solely devoted to the aggrandizement of the QB. It wasn't Joe Flacco that got the Ravens to the playoffs, even if he played well during them. It wasn't Nick Foles who got the Eagles to the Superbowl, even though he played fantastic there. It was the teams, well constructed and complementary to the QB instead of conditional to the QB.

This is the bass ackwards problem with most of these franchises and the way they tried to build their teams during the age of the Franchise Quarterback. "We have to get THE FRANCHISE QB WE'RE NOTHING WITHOUT THE FRANCHISE QB" and all of a sudden... Joe Flacco is a Franchise Quarterback. Right, that makes sense, I suppose. If only Franchise QB's can win Superbowls because that became a law of nature somewhere along the line. Except it isn't true and the NFC was always seen as the superior conference over the last fifteen even though it wasn't dominated by 2 to 3 Franchise QB's and their conditional operative methods. The NFC has had plenty of Franchise QB's. Wilson, Brees, Rodgers, even at the very edge of the picture was Matt Ryan. But the good franchises in the NFC never stopped building actual teams when they couldn't find that transcendent god QB. Unlike the AFC bottom feeders like the Jets, and Miami, and the Jaguars who are all looking for that quick fix.

The 49'ers rebuilt themselves from doormat to monstrosity twice in the last ten years by building up the goddamn TEAM around the QB. So then the QB can just throw eight fucking passes in the most ridiculous blowout of a 14 win team you've ever seen in your entire life. You do that by having a philosophy that is more advanced than "I WANT A PEYTON MANNING". So you don't need to reach for a QB, you can just make do with one that is pretty alright.

It's fucking beautiful. And contrasted directly with Andy Reid and his all in on the QB method. Although what Mahomes has in his favor that Brady had, and that Brees had, is a fucking great head coach who will actually make him better.

The Chiefs are like Tyson. Malevolent, quick-as-lightning, and deadly. But they're also foundationally weak. Meanwhile we've got the 49'ers over here with their blue collar attitudes and asymmetrical angles of attack like James Toney. It only takes one or two cracks off the edge before your defense is paralyzed and afraid to attack. And that's when they start backing you into a corner. As the clock drains away and every possession has the weight of a season on it, teams get desperate. And that breeds mistakes.

Very excited for this.

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Except it isn't true and the NFC was always seen as the superior conference over the last fifteen even though it wasn't dominated by 2 to 3 Franchise QB's and their conditional operative methods. The NFC has had plenty of Franchise QB's. Wilson, Brees, Rodgers, even at the very edge of the picture was Matt Ryan. But the good franchises in the NFC never stopped building actual teams when they couldn't find that transcendent god QB. Unlike the AFC bottom feeders like the Jets, and Miami, and the Jaguars who are all looking for that quick fix.

Huh?  I consider the Super Bowl to be the ultimate arbiter of which conference is better.  In the 80s and 90s, the NFC was the vastly superior conference, going 8-2 in both decades.  But in the 2000s, the AFC went 7-3, and they're currently 5-4 with the 2019 champ still TBD.  I don't consider the NFC to be the "superior" conference, and there was a while there in the mid-00s where the NFC looked well behind.

As for the NFC bottom feeders "never stopped building actual teams", I will point you at the Lions, Cardinals and the disgrace on the Beltway, who have always embraced the quick fix, and are every bit as bad as the Jets, Dolphins and Jags. 

[Jace, Extat]

25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Huh?  I consider the Super Bowl to be the ultimate arbiter of which conference is better.  In the 80s and 90s, the NFC was the vastly superior conference, going 8-2 in both decades.  But in the 2000s, the AFC went 7-3, and they're currently 5-4 with the 2019 champ still TBD.  I don't consider the NFC to be the "superior" conference, and there was a while there in the mid-00s where the NFC looked well behind.

As for the NFC bottom feeders "never stopped building actual teams", I will point you at the Lions, Cardinals and the disgrace on the Beltway, who have always embraced the quick fix, and are every bit as bad as the Jets, Dolphins and Jags. 

No, I meant that the NFC has always had more teams in contention that were, you know, actual contenders.

Saints

Panthers

Packers

Cardinals!

49'ers

Seahawks

Giants

Iggles

Rams

All of them went to the superbowl in the last twenty years and all of them have had good teams even when not going on multiple-SB runs.

Meanwhile over in the AFC we have...

Colts (ten years gone, Btdubbs)

Ravens

Patriots

Broncos

Steelers

Oh, and fucking Oakland if we go back to the dawn of the Bush administration.

And the AFC always has shitty shit dick slappy asshole motherfucker reject spawn teams like the Texans or the Bengals going on mini runs just to get fucking dismembered every Saturday. Sometimes they'd even play each other and then spill over into the goddamn divisional round! Even the worst NFC playoff teams of all time like the Seahawks, Panthers, and Cardinals made a good showing of themselves over the years. Sure, the Panthers beat the fuck out of a bag boy, but it was a damn fine beating when considered objectively. That 9-7 Cardinals team was the year of Larry Legend and Kurt The Bag Man Warner, maybe the best superbowl I've ever seen. The 7-9 Seattle team was the Beastmode event.

My point was that the NFC has always had lots of teams that can put a good roster together that isn't a crime against humanity year-to-year even if they can't keep up a championship level effort. Meanwhile the AFC has like 2, maybe 3 teams in a given year that are even relevant at all. The Patriots, and who do we think can beat the Patriots. The 5 and 6 seeds of the AFC are always garbage like the Dolphins and the Bills. Just utter disappointments that lucked their way into a winning season and a favorable record off the back of some good performances that won't be repeated next year. Meanwhile in the NFC the wildcards are like feral dogs missing an eye and half a foot. Sure, they're battered and torn. But they got there by fighting, and they'll give you a show.

Anyways.

[Rhom]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Snip Snip Snipperoo

Yeah.  That and stuff!!!!!

That's basically what I was trying to say in the last thread.  I think SF winning would be healthier for this copycat league, because I feel like the message here is one that is repeatable.  Unlike striking gold in the draft with a once in a lifetime talent.

[Jace, Extat]

15 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Yeah.  That and stuff!!!!!

That's basically what I was trying to say in the last thread.  I think SF winning would be healthier for this copycat league, because I feel like the message here is one that is repeatable.  Unlike striking gold in the draft with a once in a lifetime talent.

I'd love to see Andy Reid get his. But I agree on wanting the 49ers to prevail, it would be for the best.

[Rhom]

14 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'd love to see Andy Reid get his. But I agree on wanting the 49ers to prevail, it would be for the best.

Yes, I like Reid and if the Chiefs were playing any of the 15 other NFC teams I'd be pulling hard for them.

KC is where Niners QBs go to die!  Its like their retirement community or something.  Steve DeBerg, Joe Montana, Steve Bono, Elvis Grbac, Alex Smith...

[Inkdaub]

I also like Andy Reid well enough and would be fine with the Chiefs winning.  Mainly because the 49ers winning even a single game at any time is bad in a general sort of way.  Also I'm still hoping Seattle will overcome being eliminated and win anyway.

[The Mother of The Others]

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Chiefs are like Tyson. Malevolent, quick-as-lightning, and deadly. But they're also foundationally weak. Meanwhile we've got the 49'ers over here with their blue collar attitudes and asymmetrical angles of attack like James Toney. It only takes one or two cracks off the edge before your defense is paralyzed

So really it's like you're saying

Quote

I did a hardness check on both teams and KC wasn't quite as hard, so the current thinking is they'll not quite have enough. 

  https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/156259-nfl-playoffs-hindsight-is-2020-for-bad-coaching-decisions/&do=findComment&comment=8474293

 

Just, you know, using different language to get there.    Each of us drawing analogies, yours coming from a background in sports and mine heavily influenced by porn, yet both arriving at the same inescapable conclusion based on known physics and physiology.

 

And my God this is the most serious discussion of football ever seen outside of the break room at Foot Locker.  If only there was an internet Emmy category for this topic to be nominated in!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 1/27/2020 at 6:49 AM, dbunting said:

As to the how many playoff wins has Dallas had in the last 25 years crack.... Wouldn't you trade the last few play off wins Minne has had if only they could've won that year with Moss. The answer is of course, yes you would. Nice try though!

I'm not sure I would TBH, but I'm not the typical sports fan, and that loss played a role in who I became. 

[Jaime L]

6 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Kyle Shannahan actually understands that you can build a football team that isn't solely devoted to the aggrandizement of the QB. 

I mean that might be. But I'd also say this 49ers team with Mahomes (and without Solomon Thomas) under Kyle Shanahan's coaching would be....holy fuck.

And we might've gotten it too if not for this guy:

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

I mean that might be. But I'd also say this 49ers team with Mahomes (and without Solomon Thomas) under Kyle Shanahan's coaching would be....holy fuck.

But then the Niners lose the 6-7th guy on the DL depth chart - he's crucial to the rotation!

[Jaime L]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

But then the Niners lose the 6-7th guy on the DL depth chart - he's crucial to the rotation!

Yeah I mean the defense would still be great but would it pop? 

[Jace, Extat]

To pretend anyone knew what Mahomes was going to be is disingenuous. Just like every team in the league would have traded for the #1 pick to take Tom Brady if they'd known. To act otherwise is revisionist.

The entire organizational philosophy that allowed the 49'ers to build a team that got to the Superbowl without a Franchise QB is the same one that kept them from taking Mitch Trubisky at #2... and instead build a team that could make the Superbowl without a Franchise QB.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

The entire organizational philosophy that allowed the 49'ers to build a team that got to the Superbowl without a Franchise QB is the same one that kept them from taking Mitch Trubisky at #2... and instead build a team that could make the Superbowl without a Franchise QB.

The other aspect to this - which I 100% agree with - is that Shanahan found a QB that can be incredibly efficient in his system.  Other than the occasional frustrating interceptions, Garappolo has done everything asked of him throughout this season - including, as I think James Arryn mentioned a bit back - stepping up in crucial situations (e.g. on 3rd downs, in the 4th quarter, and when they're trailing).

[Jaime L]

11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

To pretend anyone knew what Mahomes was going to be is disingenuous. Just like every team in the league would have traded for the #1 pick to take Tom Brady if they'd known. To act otherwise is revisionist.

The entire organizational philosophy that allowed the 49'ers to build a team that got to the Superbowl without a Franchise QB is the same one that kept them from taking Mitch Trubisky at #2... and instead build a team that could make the Superbowl without a Franchise QB.

Oh I'm not blaming them for not taking Mahomes. I had zero thoughts on Mahomes coming into that draft and I definitely don't recall ever thinking any team was being foolish by not taking him. Very similar to Aaron Rodgers tbh. 

Just ruminating on what could've been, knowing what we know now.

[BigFatCoward]

Aren't SF paying JG like a franchise QB though? So clearly you can do both if you are clever enough. 

[dbunting]

5 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Arent SF paying JG like a franchise QB though? So clearly you can do both if you are clever enough. 

Yes they are, he got a record deal when he signed despite having very little experience. I believe he was the highest paid QB last year at 37mill, so this notion about not building around a franchise QB isn't totally accurate. He just seems like a bargain now because so many QB's contracts came due right after him. He is due roughly 25mill per year the rest of the way.