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

Mr. Guappa · 13-09-2018 09:39AM

Martavis Bryant back with the Raiders. I've no idea what Gruden is at.

Josh Allen starting this week for the Bills. They really missed a trick not having a serviceable veteran QB on the roster to hold the fort for this season.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 10:21AM

Billy86 wrote: »

See, the 2013 Patriots are a perfect example of why it is a team sport

You don't need any examples to show why it's a team sport; it IS a team sport. No one is making an argument against that, so not sure why you are bringing it up.

If Brady was missing in 2013 though, the Pats would probably have resembled the Browns record. The QB is the most important position, that's why when it comes to a GOAT discussion, it's the QBs that get mentioned.

the baby bull elephant · 13-09-2018 10:40AM

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Martavis Bryant back with the Raiders. I've no idea what Gruden is at.

Josh Allen starting this week for the Bills. They really missed a trick not having a serviceable veteran QB on the roster to hold the fort for this season.

Bryant isn't actually suspended yet and him not being on the roster week one means if he does get banned his money isn't guaranteed.

BandMember · 13-09-2018 11:46AM

Is the NFL Now tv channel gone or is it still around? Seems to have gone missing from channel lists in the past few weeks....

(Not a major loss I know, but handy for getting some repeats of shows you might miss on the NFL Network)

Barney92 · 13-09-2018 12:04PM

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.

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).

Pats in 2013 weren't good? Their defence was in the top ten for points allowed and had the 7th lowest percentage of drives faced ending in offensive scores. That gives the offence a bit of wiggle room. Without that defence, and the offence playing on the same level there's no way they go 12-4. New England were also top ten in rushing yards and had the second highest number of rushing touchdowns that year. Against without that they probably don't go 12-4. Mine point is the Patriots winning a lot doesn't mean Brady has contributed more to winning than anyone else.

The Cassel-led season helps my point out there when they went 11-5. Brady came back the next season and they went 10-6. They weren't identical teams, but had a lot of the same players. That suggests that the team would still do well without Brady. Not as well, but they wouldn't be a disaster.

Billy86 · 13-09-2018 12:31PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You don't need any examples to show why it's a team sport; it IS a team sport. No one is making an argument against that, so not sure why you are bringing it up.

If Brady was missing in 2013 though, the Pats would probably have resembled the Browns record. The QB is the most important position, that's why when it comes to a GOAT discussion, it's the QBs that get mentioned.

The thing is, if the defense had not come up like it did in the first half of 2013, the Patriots would have also likely had a record resembling the Browns with Brady at QB. Their defense was incredible over the first half of that season while the offense was having it's struggles. In actuality, their record without him is 14-6.

The Packers without Rodgers on the other hand, have proven that without Rodgers their record does resemble the Browns - 7-14-1. Last year they were 5-2 with Rodgers and 3-10 without him. One of those two losses came when Rodgers had no place on the field (rushed back vs CAR), while two of those wins were against 5-11 teams and needing OT for one of them against the Bucs, the other being a frankly fluke OT win against perhaps the worst team in NFL history.

It's a team game with an offense and a defense, and one of them tends to have a better organised team around them and especially on defense. It's pretty indisputable at this point to be honest.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 12:51PM

Barney92 wrote: »

Pats in 2013 weren't good?

Correct. It was largely ugly that year, largely due to injuries. But Brady did enough with those targets. They lost to the Broncos in the AFC game, but Broncos were by far the better team.

Barney92 wrote: »

The Cassel-led season helps my point out there when they went 11-5.

Castle still had that 2007 team. And they failed to make the playoffs; Brady playing probably would have meant another 3-4wins and a playoff run.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 12:54PM

Billy86 wrote: »

In actuality, their record without him is 14-6.

Yes. Which proves they had some decent backups unlike GB.
In 2008 they had a team that had gone 16-0 the previous year.
They went 3-1 during his suspension, with a $100+m backup QB, and a rookie that went 1-1.

Billy86 · 13-09-2018 01:18PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Yes. Which proves they had some decent backups unlike GB.
In 2008 they had a team that had gone 16-0 the previous year.
They went 3-1 during his suspension, with a $100+m backup QB, and a rookie that went 1-1.

It also proves they have a very good defence which is kind of half of the entire sport.

Green Bay without Rodgers as I said went from 5-2 (where in one of the losses he shouldn't have even been on the field) while without him barely fluked to 3-10, in the same season. In 2013, they went 2-7-1 without him vs. 6-2 with him.

It has been repeatedly shown that when Brady struggles, the defence quite reliably comes up big to help the team out (and vice-versa, which is what makes the Pats of the last 17 years probably the greatest dynasty of all time). It has also been repeatedly shown that when Rodgers struggles, the Green Bay defence does anything but that and the Packers lose. Not just in 2013 (Brady) vs 2015 (Rodgers), but in the playoffs too - this is why one of them has a playoff record of 10-7 with a passer rating under 90, and the other has a playoff record of 1-4 in the same circumstances.

I mean, you seem to be trying to claim that defence isn't a part of the game by saying the 2013 Patriots weren't good because the offense struggled in the first half (ignoring that the defence was incredible in that period), but you're not actually trying to claim that Belichick and his coordinators have not been any better than Dom Capers over the last 6-7 years, are you?

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 01:31PM

In 2013 (if I remember correctly) we kinda played a weaken schedule. We'd a far better D in 2014, but we ranked worse as we played a stronger schedule.

If GB has a bad backup, then the D will spend more time on the field. They will concede more than they would with an offense that has long drives and scores, putting pressure on the opposition. Good offense also helps a D out, not just the other way around.

Billy86 wrote: »

I mean, you seem to be trying to claim that defence isn't a part of the game

No I'm not, and by continuing to ignore what I've said (it's a team game), there's no point in continuing this when you only see what defends Rodgers.

Jolly Red Giant · 13-09-2018 01:43PM

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

Bryant isn't actually suspended yet and him not being on the roster week one means if he does get banned his money isn't guaranteed.

Bryant is a match-up problem if his head is in the game - the problem is that his head is not often in the game.

Billy86 · 13-09-2018 02:33PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

In 2013 (if I remember correctly) we kinda played a weaken schedule. We'd a far better D in 2014, but we ranked worse as we played a stronger schedule.

The combined record of the teams the Patriots played while the offense was struggling was 60-68, which comes out to 7.5 wins and 8.5 losses each on average. Three of the teams faced were 10 for points scored, while two were top 10.

If GB has a bad backup, then the D will spend more time on the field. They will concede more than they would with an offense that has long drives and scores, putting pressure on the opposition. Good offense also helps a D out, not just the other way around.

The failing in this logic is that the Patriots offense was struggling in 2013 and so the defense saw more time on the field, yet they played incredibly well and were the main reason the team were 6-2 before Gronk returned and the offense got ticking again.

In fact, while the 2017 Packers were bottom of the pile with 283 yards per game (168 per game in the air), in 2013 without Rodgers the Packers were putting up more offensive yards per game (357) than the Patriots when they were struggling on offense in that same year (330), and more in the air as well (243 vs 210). Yet the Pats went 6-2 while the Packers went 2-7-1, because it helps when your defense is playing out of their minds and when you have probably the greatest coach and one of the greatest defensive minds in the history of the game running the show.

The 2013 Packers without Rodgers even picked up more on average than the 2016 Patriots without Brady by - 357 yards per game (243 in the air) vs 346 yards (211 in the air), yet the 2016 Pats went 3-1 vs the 2-7-1 of the 2016 Packers... which might have something to do with them averaging only 15.25 points per game while the 2013 Pack were giving up 30.25 points per game without Rodgers.

As for first downs per game - the 2013 Pack without Rodgers averaged the most of the lot at 20.6, followed by the 2013 Pats with the offense struggling at 19.8, followed by the 2016 Pats without Brady at 19.0, followed by the 2017 Pack without Rodgers at 16.9.

No I'm not, and by continuing to ignore what I've said (it's a team game), there's no point in continuing this when you only see what defends Rodgers.

Except I don't "only see what defends Rodgers" as I have repeatedly, and very intentionally, stated Brady to my mind is the GOAT. But what I am also saying is he has a lot more around him on the whole, and that no QB is winning any Superbowls when their teams is so dependent on them, especially with such shoddy defenses as Rodgers has tended to have.

The Patriots in 2013 were bailed out in a big way by their defense through the first half of the season, this is a luxury that simply does not exist to Aaron Rodgers. There is no disputing that Belichick and his coordinators have performed immeasurably better than Capers' defenses when needed most over the course of the decade.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 03:13PM

Billy86 wrote: »

The failing in this logic is that the Patriots offense was struggling in 2013 and so the defense saw more time on the field, yet they played incredibly well

The failing is not examining the strength of opposition/schedule/division etc.
You just want to look at defense and defense only. I could understand if we had that Seattle or Broncos D, but we didn't. I will say that Talib was huge for us, cause he did have a very good year.

NE did struggle offensively in 2013 due to changes from 2012, but my point is that even with those bunch of receivers, NE still finished 7th on offense and 3rd in scoring. And I acknowledge that playing in the AFC East and an easier schedule that year helped. But with Brady (or Rodgers) you don't end like the Browns (which was my original point).

Billy86 · 13-09-2018 03:30PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

The failing is not examining the strength of opposition/schedule/division etc.
You just want to look at defense and defense only. I could understand if we had that Seattle or Broncos D, but we didn't. I will say that Talib was huge for us, cause he did have a very good year.

Defense and defense only? I am literally just after breaking down the offensive output during the times from each team I was talking about to disprove what you were claiming and showing the strength of schedule the Patriots faced during that period in 2013?

NE did struggle offensively in 2013 due to changes from 2012, but my point is that even with those bunch of receivers, NE still finished 7th on offense and 3rd in scoring. And I acknowledge that playing in the AFC East and an easier schedule that year helped. But with Brady (or Rodgers) you don't end like the Browns (which was my original point).

I know NE improved once Gronk returned on offense and have said as much, but was referring to when the offense struggled in the first half of the year, how the defense came up absolute huge.

That just simply doesn't happen in Green Bay since 2011 as Dom Capers was nothing short of pathetic at his job, should have been gone (no joke) a full 5 years ago, and was the reason I have (correctly) said every August for years in the Packers thread that he would break our hearts come January, because my point is that nobody was winning any Superbowls with Dom Capers as their DC. I'm hoping it changes this year with Pettine in though. Meanwhile, Brady has had one of the greatest defensive minds in the history of the game on the other side of the ball for him, and it very much has shown compared to Capers - that cannot be argued with.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 13-09-2018 04:07PM

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.

But we're not talking about being great, we're talking about goat. And imo Superbowls play a huge factor, the biggest in fact seeing as they're what every player and team strive for. Peyton doesn't enter into that conversation because of his lack of Superbowls, Rodgers definitely shouldn't.
Rodgers often gets called the most talented of all time, but who gives a sh1t? It was what Marino was called once upon a time and it'll be what some other QB will be called in another 30 years. Peyton is called the best regular season player of all time, and again, who cares?
The bottom line is that the greatest player of all time is Brady and Montana is a clear second. After that, it's debatable. Superbowl LI settled that, and last season just reinforced it.

Jolly Red Giant · 13-09-2018 04:31PM

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

But we're not talking about being great, we're talking about goat. And imo Superbowls play a huge factor, the biggest in fact seeing as they're what every player and team strive for. Peyton doesn't enter into that conversation because of his lack of Superbowls, Rodgers definitely shouldn't.
Rodgers often gets called the most talented of all time, but who gives a sh1t? It was what Marino was called once upon a time and it'll be what some other QB will be called in another 30 years. Peyton is called the best regular season player of all time, and again, who cares?
The bottom line is that the greatest player of all time is Brady and Montana is a clear second. After that, it's debatable. Superbowl LI settled that, and last season just reinforced it.

American football is a team sport - in fact it is the ultimate team sport.

QBs are an important part of the equation - but only a part. An NFL team has to manage the cap, free agency, the draft and UDFAs, the coaches have to put a scheme in place that works and the players have to deliver etc.

In my opinion Brady is the best QB of the modern era - not because he has more SBs than Manning or Rodgers, but because he has proven to be more consistent in all facets of the game. But over the past decade and a half Brady has had a better supporting cast to work with - a better coaching staff to work with - and has been willing to take a hometown discount in order to help the team win - and all of those have counted against both Manning and Rodgers.

Plug Manning or Rodgers into the situation in NE and you probably get the same return as Brady - put Brady into the crap Colts teams that Manning had to deal with or the Packers and likely he wouldn't have all his SB rings.

Put Brady, Manning or Rodgers into the 1980s Redskins, Giants, Raiders, Bears, Broncos, Dolphins, Browns, Bengals and they likely would have done no better (and probably worse) than the incumbents. Put them into the 1980s 49ers team with Walsh/Siefert and the roster there and they possibly would have done the same as Montana.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 04:33PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Defense and defense only? I am literally just after breaking down the offensive output during the times from each team I was talking about to disprove what you were claiming and showing the strength of schedule the Patriots faced during that period in 2013?

You touched on offense, but it's been about defense in the majority of your posts. You didn't disprove anything; the offense was struggling, but they still were a top 7 offense (so the D wasn't spending huge time on the field), they didn't struggle to the point where they were one of the worst teams (and had a great D bailing them out).

Billy86 wrote: »

That just simply doesn't happen in Green Bay since 2011 as Dom Capers was nothing short of pathetic at his job, should have been gone (no joke) a full 5 years ago

We all know about Dom Capers. It's been relentless for those 5 years.

Billy86 wrote: »

Meanwhile, Brady has had one of the greatest defensive minds in the history of the game on the other side of the ball for him, and it very much has shown compared to Capers - that cannot be argued with.

I've not arguing Bill v Capers. It's not an argument that anyone else is having.

You started quoting me from when I was speaking about Brady (or Rodgers) being with the Browns. They wouldn't be 4-12. It wouldn't happen. Brady showed that in 2013 with the weapons he had. He'll still get the job done. It's still a team game, so every QB needs their D to do something; but the QB is so important.

If you want to argue that Brady's D's have had the edge, ok. I still think there's been plenty of times when the D have being below average in the league, but he's still got the job done. Rodgers hasn't had continuous disasters in his D, where in the context of SB appearances, it's resulted in 8 to 1. But he has time, but he needs to get it done.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 04:57PM

This become a long drawn out two way debate. So, I’m out on this one. Just feels repetitive, and one of those threads when others just want to get back on topic (even for this particular thread

).

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 13-09-2018 05:00PM

I'm out too, regret getting into it tbh. Could argue it a million different ways and we'd probably all still have the same opinion. I'm busy enough at work without this annoying me too!

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 05:01PM

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Josh Allen starting this week for the Bills. They really missed a trick not having a serviceable veteran QB on the roster to hold the fort for this season.

True. But they couldn’t go with Nathan Peterman again. Allen can’t be worse.

Billy86 · 13-09-2018 05:45PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You touched on offense, but it's been about defense in the majority of your posts. You didn't disprove anything; the offense was struggling, but they still were a top 7 offense (so the D wasn't spending huge time on the field), they didn't struggle to the point where they were one of the worst teams (and had a great D bailing them out).

We all know about Dom Capers. It's been relentless for those 5 years.

I've not arguing Bill v Capers. It's not an argument that anyone else is having.

You started quoting me from when I was speaking about Brady (or Rodgers) being with the Browns. They wouldn't be 4-12. It wouldn't happen. Brady showed that in 2013 with the weapons he had. He'll still get the job done. It's still a team game, so every QB needs their D to do something; but the QB is so important.

If you want to argue that Brady's D's have had the edge, ok. I still think there's been plenty of times when the D have being below average in the league, but he's still got the job done. Rodgers hasn't had continuous disasters in his D, where in the context of SB appearances, it's resulted in 8 to 1. But he has time, but he needs to get it done.

The Patriots did not have the 7th best offense through the first 8 weeks of 2013 - very, very far from it. And as I showed, the defense played out of it's absolute mind to make the Pats 6-2, rather than 2-6 or 3-4 by the time the offense got going again. None of that is debatable.

My point was that when Brady and the offense struggle, Bill has the defense pick things up while Capers just delivered a streaming pile of sh*te instead. Because it's a team game and QBs do not play on defense, having a better defense makes winning games easier, which is what Brady has had vs Rodgers, especially when needed most. And that's not up for debate, unless you think Belichick is severely overrated. I'll leave it at that, as I've shown everything else thoroughly in the previous posts.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 13-09-2018 06:23PM

It certainly weird and wacky when people keep making up stuff that I didn’t say. Had already added one person like that to the ignore list, time to add another.

Jolly Red Giant · 13-09-2018 06:33PM

Billy86 wrote: »

My point was that when Brady and the offense struggle, Bill has the defense pick things up while Capers just delivered a streaming pile of sh*te instead. Because it's a team game and QBs do not play on defense, having a better defense makes winning games easier, which is what Brady has had vs Rodgers, especially when needed most. And that's not up for debate, unless you think Belichick is severely overrated. I'll leave it at that, as I've shown everything else thoroughly in the previous posts.

The way the modern game is developing defences are becoming more important. The rules are making it more difficult for defences and promote a passing game. This has led to increased speed on defence and more money on the defensive side of the ball. OL in particular are struggling - and it is getting increasingly difficult to find good OL players. They are taking longer to develop and continue to fall behind DL and the pass rush.

BB has done a terrific job at keeping the Pats defence at a level to maintain the high level of Pats play - and Brady has done the rest with what was available. Without BB Brady likely would not be in the position he is today and without Brady BB would likely not have been able to keep the Pats competitive. It will eventually come to an end - but credit where credit is due (even if I don't like admitting it).

paulie21 · 13-09-2018 07:28PM

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Josh Allen starting this week for the Bills. They really missed a trick not having a serviceable veteran QB on the roster to hold the fort for this season.

They traded away their veteran serviceable QB. Now the Browns can let Mayfield sit and learn for the year

13-09-2018 08:08PM

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

Rodgers often gets called the most talented of all time, but who gives a sh1t?.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I hate state the very obvious, but on the basis of what you just said, possibly anyone who defines greatest by talent?

You define it in terms of success, and that's equally legitimate.

You see, that's where the debate kinda goes around in circles, people simply have different ideas of what the word "greatest" really means.

Paully D · 13-09-2018 09:03PM

https://twitter.com/albertbreer/status/1040338956750077953?s=21

:eek:

Realt Dearg Sec · 13-09-2018 09:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I hate state the very obvious, but on the basis of what you just said, possibly anyone who defines greatest by talent?

You define it in terms of success, and that's equally legitimate.

You see, that's where the debate kinda goes around in circles, people simply have different ideas of what the word "greatest" really means.

I actually think it works the other way round. People decide which one they like best, then decide on the meaning of the word "greatest" based on which bears out their opinion. That's why there's no Packers or Patriots fans who think the guy from the other team is the best.

So basically I agree with the people (to their credit, mostly Packers and Patriots fans also) who think the debate itself is pointless. FWIW if I were in any way neutral about it I would enjoy watching Rodgers play more. But I'm not neutral and he has tormented my team for his whole career.

Billy86 · 13-09-2018 09:27PM

Wow. Crazier again is that apart from Bosa (23) and Atkins (30) all the other guys are 25 or 26 years of age, and were likely on the exact same team.

I looked them up and those are the big names but that's actually barely half of it! Sam Young (31, Dolphins), Rashad Green (25, Jags), Marcus Gilbert (30, Steelers), Michael Palardy (26, Panthers), Jake Rudock (25, Lions) and Dezmen Southward (27, Panthers) are all active NFL players who went there too.

Others to make play in the NFL from there this decade (so same age bracket) are Leonard Hankerson (29), Richard Goodman (30), Tavaris Gooden (33), Cody Riggs (26), Nate Salley (34), Major Wright (30), and Jeremy Cain (38).

Meaning 8-9 years ago, some poor little b*stards had to go and line up against at least TEN future NFL players, all on the same team.

Brian Piccolo (Brian's Song, jersey retired by Bears where he played in the 1960s) also went there which might explain some of the pride or tradition, but the explosion of kids in that area might also be that they had a small handful of players in the 80s/90s who made it on to teams, none of which were noteworthy apart from one...

eagle eye · 13-09-2018 09:28PM

I hadn't put Brady out in his own until his last Superbowl. In fact thought it was very close between him and Joe Montana.
Right now Montana is my clear no.2 all time.

Billy86 · 13-09-2018 09:30PM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I actually think it works the other way round. People decide which one they like best, then decide on the meaning of the word "greatest" based on which bears out their opinion. That's why there's no Packers or Patriots fans who think the guy from the other team is the best.

So basically I agree with the people (to their credit, mostly Packers and Patriots fans also) who think the debate itself is pointless. FWIW if I were in any way neutral about it I would enjoy watching Rodgers play more. But I'm not neutral and he has tormented my team for his whole career.

Hhheeeyyyyy, that's not fair. I loved watching Jay play.

Actually jokes aside, a bit like Luck he was great to watch even as a neutral I found - big yards, big plays, could make some jaw dropping throws at any moment but also made some of the most amazingly stupid decisions to force the throw at the same time for big interceptions etc. Obviously he wasn't as good as Luck, but just in terms of watching him play - Favre was likely similar for non-Packers fans. Plus he seems like a sound b*stard and genuinely good guy, and his WRs through his career owe him thanks because if nothing else, he did make his targets look good and get high numbers (read: $$$ contracts).

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

Comments