The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

eagle eye · 12-09-2018 05:12PM

I could go on and on about Tom Brady all day long. I'm not going to do that. There are plenty of people who talk about his drive, work ethic etc. I don't often hear people talk about his pocket awareness and ability to move around in the pocket. I don't think I've ever seen anybody as good as him at that.

Foxtrol · 12-09-2018 05:16PM

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

Irrelevant. His body of work is enough that things like that do not matter at all. What he has accomplished is more than enough.

You posted that how you judge this discussion is for the player who can contribute the best towards winning so it is strange that you now say that this is irrelevant.

If you want to judge the best being the QB who has won the most then fine but I just don’t understand this concept in a team sport.

raze_them_all_ · 12-09-2018 05:26PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I could go on and on about Tom Brady all day long. I'm not going to do that. There are plenty of people who talk about his drive, work ethic etc. I don't often hear people talk about his pocket awareness and ability to move around in the pocket. I don't think I've ever seen anybody as good as him at that.

Will agree in the pocket he's a magician

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 12-09-2018 08:24PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

You posted that how you judge this discussion is for the player who can contribute the best towards winning so it is strange that you now say that this is irrelevant.

If you want to judge the best being the QB who has won the most then fine but I just don’t understand this concept in a team sport.

Yes. On the field. As a player, them playing is important.
I honestly don't see how this is a discussion between Rodgers and Brady. Rodgers has 1 superbowl, if we're debating Montana here fair enough. But Rodgers simply does not belong in this conversation until he wins at least 2 more.

AbusesToilets · 12-09-2018 08:51PM

The two stats I think that speak to Brady's excellence best are his record when forced to throw more than 50 times in a game, and his post season win total.

There are other stats where things are close between him and his contemporaries, but those are two where they aren't even in the same solar system.

Itssoeasy · 12-09-2018 08:54PM

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote: »

You posted that how you judge this discussion is for the player who can contribute the best towards winning so it is strange that you now say that this is irrelevant.

If you want to judge the best being the QB who has won the most then fine but I just don’t understand this concept in a team sport.

Yes. On the field. As a player, them playing is important.
I honestly don't see how this is a discussion between Rodgers and Brady. Rodgers has 1 superbowl, if we're debating Montana here fair enough. But Rodgers simply does not belong in this conversation until he wins at least 2 more.

Two more so three super bowl wins then ? I thought it was two wins or at least that was the line when peyton manning was trying to win his second.

So that's only tom Brady, joe Montana, terry bradshaw, and Troy aikman can be considered going on that criteria of three at last.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 12-09-2018 09:07PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Two more so three super bowl wins then ? I thought it was two wins or at least that was the line when peyton manning was trying to win his second.

So that's only tom Brady, joe Montana, terry bradshaw, and Troy aikman can be considered going on that criteria of three at last.

I liked to see Rodgers just get back to a SB.
He has 1 SB appearance. If you are the GOAT, you do a lot more than that. Green Bay have been far from a complete disaster in terms of the talent around Rodgers.
He's a great player, no doubt. But for me he's closer to Drew Brees level than a GOAT discussion with Brady/Montana/Manning.

TOss Sweep · 12-09-2018 09:23PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I could go on and on about Tom Brady all day long. I'm not going to do that. There are plenty of people who talk about his drive, work ethic etc. I don't often hear people talk about his pocket awareness and ability to move around in the pocket. I don't think I've ever seen anybody as good as him at that.

Agreed and I think Montana comes a close second to pocket presence and awareness and Rodgers not far behind. Manning have fantastic presence but also a very quick release early on so it didn't matter for him as much. The only difference with newer QBs is they are better and moving out of the pocket on their feet and releasing the ball or running with it. Montana and Brady are defined as Pure Pocket passers or where as times have changed and the labels don't really mean much anymore. Rodgers accuracy when on the move is incredible. Not an easy throw to make.

I also wouldn't say its impossible to compare QBs of different era but its not easy either. If anything the position has become more refined especially the mechanics. But the ability to drive your team down the field and score hasn't changed. But I think overall you there will never be a true GOAT because there is no way to truly separate who is the best.

Personally I put Brady, Montana, Rodgers, Manning in the Top Tier. Behind them Favre, Elway, Young, Unitas, Brees, Graham, Marino and Kelly.

I think there is also quite a few knocking on the door of that the 2nd tier of mine currently playing.

Billy86 · 12-09-2018 09:26PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I liked to see Rodgers just get back to a SB.
He has 1 SB appearance. If you are the GOAT, you do a lot more than that. Green Bay have been far from a complete disaster in terms of the talent around Rodgers.
He's a great player, no doubt. But for me he's closer to Drew Brees level than a GOAT discussion with Brady/Montana/Manning.

Unfortunately for Rodgers, with Capers as he was for the last 7 years, none of those guys were getting to any Superbowls.

TOss Sweep · 12-09-2018 09:32PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The state of Georgia is imposing a state of emergency because the track of Hurricane Florence has shifted slightly south and looks like it will affect Georgia. This is important as the Falcons are playing at home this sunday so it may disrupt the game.

Yeah this storm is going to f**k sh*t up thats for sure. Few friends of ours have bounced out of NC and SC and others on the NE Georgia coast decided to board up and leave also. Taking no chances.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 12-09-2018 09:49PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Unfortunately for Rodgers, with Capers as he was for the last 7 years, none of those guys were getting to any Superbowls.

They had their chances. And Dom Capers can’t be the excuse anymore.

Itssoeasy · 12-09-2018 09:52PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I liked to see Rodgers just get back to a SB.
He has 1 SB appearance. If you are the GOAT, you do a lot more than that. Green Bay have been far from a complete disaster in terms of the talent around Rodgers.
He's a great player, no doubt. But for me he's closer to Drew Brees level than a GOAT discussion with Brady/Montana/Manning.

Yes one appearance and one win. He's battting 1.000 to use a baseball term. So how can you consider manning a GOAT of all time discussion when he only has two with two guys who have nine between them when Aaron Rodgers needs two more according to one poster.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 12-09-2018 10:00PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yes one appearance and one win. He's battting 1.000 to use a baseball term.

So what? So is Joe Flacco.
I’ll take 2 from 4, or 5 from 8, ahead of 1 from 1 every day of the week.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So how can you consider manning a GOAT

Very easily. He’s a great player, who has the longevity and the stats/records, made it to 4 SBs, winning 2; and probably would have won a lot more but for Brady.

Itssoeasy · 12-09-2018 10:03PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

So what? So is Joe Flacco.
I’ll take 2 from 4, or 5 from 8, ahead of 1 from 1 every day of the week.

Very easily. He’s a great player, who has the longevity and the stats/records, made it to 4 SBs, winning 2; and probably would have won a lot more but for Brady.

So is super bowl wins the main determination of greatness for a QB then ? I mean dan Marino only got to one and didn't win it, but you wouldn't find many football fans who wouldn't consider him an all time great.

Itssoeasy · 12-09-2018 10:09PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

So what? So is Joe Flacco.
I’ll take 2 from 4, or 5 from 8, ahead of 1 from 1 every day of the week.

Very easily. He’s a great player, who has the longevity and the stats/records, made it to 4 SBs, winning 2; and probably would have won a lot more but for Brady.

Did I say manning wasn't a great player ? No I didn't I'm just trying to clarify how to some fans the number of super bowl wins a QB gets isn't the be all end all and to others without them they aren't considered an all time great. It wasn't you btw who seemed to decide that Rodgers needed three super bowl rings to be in the league of the greats. It's just that either they matter or they don't.

Manning might have gotten to more super bowls but no guarantees he'd have won more. I mean the cork footballers of the 1970s and early 80s could have won more but for Kerry but they didn't.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 12-09-2018 10:16PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So is super bowl wins the main determination of greatness for a QB then ?

No, and I didn’t say that.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Did I say manning wasn't a great player ?

I didn’t say you said anything.
I just answered your question as to how Manning could be GOAT.

You’re focused on the SB wins stuff; ignoring what I said about the longevity, the records/stats and just getting your team to the SB.
Winning SBs are a component of the GOAT discussion; they are meant to be the greatest of all time, so it has value.

Billy86 · 12-09-2018 10:25PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

They had their chances. And Dom Capers can’t be the excuse anymore.

As I said yesterday, when Brady's defenses have given up 37+ pointsi n the playoffs he has never won. Though it's only happened in 5% of his playoff games vs 29% of Rodgers'. Manning nor Montana have either.

Last years Superbowl was an excellent example of what Rodgers has typically had on the other side of the ball during the playoffs. That's not to take anything away from Brady, it's just to say nobody was winning with Capers phenomenal ability to self-sabotage.

It is good to see Capers gone though, you are right there. The Bears would have put up close to 40 the other day if he and his ability to make all pros like Hyde and Hayward look so average that heavy investment had to go into the secondary over and over, were he still around.

12-09-2018 10:26PM

I think superbowls are a meaningless stat some of the greatd have never won while average players have multiple this is a teams sport so you need good teammates/coaching nobody has ever won without both as far as I know but at least one

Having said that I think Brady is the goat but I understand the logic of taking rogers in a "for one game" situation

Knex* · 12-09-2018 11:07PM

It's hard to trust a QB more than Brady tbh. Ruthless delivery, game after game, year after year. Regardless of the situation or circumstance.

Billy86 · 12-09-2018 11:21PM

Knex. wrote: »

It's hard to trust a QB more than Brady tbh. Ruthless delivery, game after game, year after year. Regardless of the situation or circumstance.

Oh it's absolutely the longevity and consistency that has him as the GOAT for me, though ruthlessness and consistency are just as true for Rodgers (except for the injuries, which are indeed a knock).

If I'm correct, barring the suspension and 2008 which was a complete freak injury, Brady has never missed a game in his entire career. That's quite remarkably over 17 seasons starting.

Realt Dearg Sec · 12-09-2018 11:46PM

So what? So is Joe Flacco.
I’ll take 2 from 4, or 5 from 8, ahead of 1 from 1 every day of the week.

Is Eli Manning better than Aaron Rodgers?

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 06:25AM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

So what? So is Joe Flacco.
I’ll take 2 from 4, or 5 from 8, ahead of 1 from 1 every day of the week.

Is Eli Manning better than Aaron Rodgers?

No. I was responding to the "one appearance and one win. He's battting 1.000 to use a baseball term", to highlight that one appearance/win doesn't hold much weight.
Payton made it to 4 SBs, Brady 8, Montana 4. Their greatness elevated their teams. It's not the sole factor when discussion who is the GOAT, but the greatest in most sports tend to drive their teams to winning trophies.

And, again, when I was asked "So is super bowl wins the main determination of greatness for a QB then", I said no.

Adamocovic · 13-09-2018 07:06AM

Gas how Gruden said he needs to look into why they failed to put pressure on Goff last weekend. We all know the reason.

Some Winners and Losers here from week 1, no doubt a few may divide opinions or some people may have been overlooked.

Big debate is whether Week 1 was good or bad for Bell.

Conner dominated in the passing and rushing game for Pittsburgh. People have now flocked on the idea that Bell may not be as good as many rate him and that rather he benefits from a system set up to get the best out of RBs. Brady has faced similar arguments when he’s missed games and his back-ups have performed, but things are different for Bell.

http://foolprooffootball.com/2018/09/12/nfl-2018-week-1-winners-and-losers/

brinty · 13-09-2018 07:09AM

Itssoeasy wrote:

So is super bowl wins the main determination of greatness for a QB then ? I mean dan Marino only got to one and didn't win it, but you wouldn't find many football fans who wouldn't consider him an all time great.

This exactly

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 07:27AM

Adamocovic wrote: »

Big debate is whether Week 1 was good or bad for Bell.

Probably closer to bad. But it was just one week. Jonas Gray anyone?

Adamocovic · 13-09-2018 07:33AM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Probably closer to bad. But it was just one week. Jonas Gray anyone?

Ha harsh on Conner!

But definitely agree it's early days. If reports are to be believed that the Bell saga may continue on for a number of weeks it really does give Conner just more time to make a case for himself.

Barney92 · 13-09-2018 08:18AM

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

My 2 cents on the GOAT argument.

I see a lot here about "based on pure talent." Tbh I think it's a shıtty, irrelevant argument. That's not what football, or any team sport, is about. The best player is the player who can contribute the best towards winning.
Tom Brady probably wouldn't even be in the top 3 in terms of talent in his generation. Does that matter? Not one bit. He has contributed more towards winning games that any other player has in history, and it's not even close. Not to mention he's done it in the era when every rule and league-wide strategy is designed to stop repeat winners. Has he benefited from favourable external factors (weak division, great head coach, etc)? Yes, he has, but he's so far ahead of 2nd best that's it's irrelevant.
Football is a results based business, and talent is only 1 attribute that contributes towards making a great player. Tom is so much more than his talent, and every former teammate of his will testify to that.

At the end of the day, you can say A-Rod, Marino, Elway or Young is the most talented, but who the fcuk cares? It's a losers argument. The greatest football player of all time is Tom Brady. Montana is a comfortable second, and until such time Aaron Rodgers wins 2 more Superbowls he doesn't even belong in the argument.

Whilst I'm not going to argue that Rodgers is better than Brady, or indeed vice versa, I don't agree with this argument at all. His team won more games but that does not equal contributing more towards winning games. You could have an outstanding player who is on a dreadful team. They're may be contributing more than Brady is but because the team/coach is dreadful they are just contributing to losses. Contribution towards winning means the team has to win, I get that, but for the team to win you need (generally) more than one player to perform. Say Brady was on the Browns for the last two years and they went 4-12 both years. He's the same player as he is with the Pats, but now he would be contributing to losses rather than wins.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 08:37AM

Barney92 wrote: »

Say Brady was on the Browns for the last two years and they went 4-12 both years.

This wouldn't happen. Same if it was Rodgers, or any of the greats, if they played for the Browns. TDs would go up and INTs would go down by a considerable facor when you look back at the QBs they've had. Ls would turn to Ws in so many games.

The QB position is the most important in football, and for a very good reason. The Pats in 2013 were not good. They lost key players to injury, a certain scumbag in jail, and Brady was targeting Austin Collie, Hoomanawanui, Aaron Dobson and Kenbrell Thompkins. They still went 12:4 and lost by 10pts in the AFC game to the record setting Broncos.

The conversation is about the GOAT and the candidates. We're not talking about Eli, Flacco even Ben in that discussion. It's not about great players, but those who make up the greatest ever. I don't mind people including Rodgers, because projecting forward, his body of work may reach Brady/Manning/Montana etc, but he's got quite a bit to go yet (IMO).

Billy86 · 13-09-2018 09:28AM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

This wouldn't happen. Same if it was Rodgers, or any of the greats, if they played for the Browns. TDs would go up and INTs would go down by a considerable facor when you look back at the QBs they've had. Ls would turn to Ws in so many games.

The QB position is the most important in football, and for a very good reason. The Pats in 2013 were not good. They lost key players to injury, a certain scumbag in jail, and Brady was targeting Austin Collie, Hoomanawanui, Aaron Dobson and Kenbrell Thompkins. They still went 12:4 and lost by 10pts in the AFC game to the record setting Broncos.

See, the 2013 Patriots are a perfect example of why it is a team sport. Here is how Brady's number looked through the first half of that season:

You'll note the W/L column has them at 6-2 - that was because the defense went a little insane in that period, getting 22 turnovers in just 8 games (2.75 per game), which would have had them on pace to finish with 15 more takeaways than the Seahawks Legion of Boom defense in their prime, and that they were allowing 14 points a game in that period helped them to a top ten defense in points allowed at the end of the year. That is also before taking into account that three of the Patriots 16 TDs over those 8 games were scored by the defense. They were playing out of their absolute minds in that first half of 2013, to put it mildly.

Funny enough, that died off right as Brady's numbers went back up when Gronkowski came back. but that's the thing with the Patriots that has been so key to their success for so long - if the defense is struggling they have Brady. But if Brady is struggling, the defense tends to come up big.

It's a luxury most other QBs just do not have. For example when Rodgers had his own dip in the second half of 2015, the Packers defense rather than help bail out the offense gave up 23 points per game, only had 10 turnovers (1 for a TD) despite playing one more game than Brady's rough patch, and as a result the Packers went 4-6 through that period compared to the Patriots being 6-2.

QB is the most important position, but let's not make out that they don't need good coaches and teammates around them, particularly on the other side of the ball as quarterbacks don't play defense, to consistently win games.

Jolly Red Giant · 13-09-2018 09:34AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Two more so three super bowl wins then ? I thought it was two wins or at least that was the line when peyton manning was trying to win his second.

So that's only tom Brady, joe Montana, terry bradshaw, and Troy aikman can be considered going on that criteria of three at last.

As I said earlier - there is a major problem with trying to compare QBs from different eras - and QBs with different quality of rosters.

A case in point - Dan Marino never won a SB - but Dan Marino carried the entire Dolphins team with him practically throughout his entire career. The Dolphins never managed to put together a decent roster around Marino to win the SB. Elway never had a running game - until the Broncos drafted Terrell Davis and Davis became the key in winning two SBs for the Broncos.

Joe Montana won 3 SBs in the 1980s - but Montana had Bill Walsh as HC and Walsh built a great roster around Montana - Roger Craig at RB, Jerry Rice at WR, Ronnie Lott at S, Charles Haley at LB - and most importantly an excellent OL that was there for all 3 SB wins - Steve Wallace, Jesse Sapolu, Randy Cross, Guy McIntyre, Bubba Paris, Harris Barton. The impact of the continuity on the OL and the ability that they had to protect Montana cannot be underestimated in the success Montana had as a QB.

One other thing to remember - free agency (1993) or the salary cap (1994) didn't exist in the 1980s - the ability of teams to control their players meant that it was much harder to build a roster. Again - stuff like the hometown discount of $10m+ that Brady affords the Pats cannot be underestimated in the ability of BB to bring in FAs. That could not have happened in the 1980s.

If you put Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers or any modern QB into the game of the 1980s and there is no guarantee that they would succeed - different game, different way of building a roster etc. In the same way if you put any of the 1980s QBs into the modern game again - no guarantee that any would be anything other than a journeyman QB.

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

Comments