NFL 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
As good as Tampa’s D has been, Chiefs offense is better (IMO). They should be the favourites for SB.
 
Tampa's run D is gonna take away any rushing threat that the Chiefs might have, so it's gonna come down to Mahomes and his weapons to beat their secondary. They need to get Winfield Jr. and Whitehead healthy first and foremost, and Lavonte David and Devin White will need to play out of their skin to get their D off the field as much as possible. On the other hand I feel like you can run against the Chiefs and Fournette has been doing well this playoffs. Tampa's biggest concern should be to keep a clean pocket for Brady though, and if they do that, he'll keep them close imo.

Still, the Chiefs have lost one meaningful game in their last 26 games. On the other hand, somehow Brady always seems to get it done too when it's needed most. Intriguing matchup, will be a good one hopefully. I'm not betting against Mahomes, but it feels weird to say you're betting against Brady in a SB too :lol:
 
RobinLFC said:
......

Still, the Chiefs have lost one meaningful game in their last 26 games. On the other hand, somehow Brady always seems to get it done too when it's needed most. Intriguing matchup, will be a good one hopefully. I'm not betting against Mahomes, but it feels weird to say you're betting against Brady in a SB too :lol:
Click to expand...
He has not done that always in the past.
I can't see him pulling this off, to be honest. KC have shown that they are also capable of stoppng the run, and I do not trust TB with the ball that much to think he might beat Mahomes.

As we've seen yesterday, you can impress and intimidate a team like GB when you take the lead.
But that does not bother KC at all. They are so good, it has become habitual for them. And they can nurse a one score lead like no other team out there.
 
UweBein said:
He has not done that always in the past.
I can't see him pulling this off, to be honest. KC have shown that they are also capable of stoppng the run, and I do not trust TB with the ball that much to think he might beat Mahomes.

As we've seen yesterday, you can impress and intimidate a team like GB when you take the lead.
But that does not bother KC at all. They are so good, it has become habitual for them. And they can nurse a one score lead like no other team out there.
Click to expand...
Yeah agreed with all of that which is why I said I'm not betting against Mahomes, think they'll get it done but it feels strange to bet against Brady too :D
 
UweBein said:
Won't matter unless one of Kelce, Hill and Mahomes is also injured.
Click to expand...
I think it absolutely does matter a lot. If they can't protect Mahomes, Hill can't get deep enough either for example.

 
Brady is gonna win another ring and I’m going to have to become an NBA fan to avoid the rimming he’s going to get from every corner of the media.
 
I'm not writing off Brady at all pulling this off, he knows theres a lot riding on it, insanely despite his success. Mahomes is off to an absolute flying start of a career, and the gap between 2 and 6 will look an awful lot smaller than 1 and 7 if it goes KC's way - especially with Mahomes having a good 12-15 years at least likely left.

In his mind, if he can hold off Mahomes here, it cements him for at least another generation at least. But from Mahomes perspective, that OT loss still gotta really hurt... undefeated in regulation playoffs still, so could be a perfect touch passing game.... but who's to say Brady won't just make it here again next year.
 
Man of Leisure said:
All the talk leading up to the Super Bowl will be Brady vs Mahomes. On one side, you've got the goat. On the other, you've got someone who has a legitimate chance to eventually claiming that title. Beating TB would go a long way towards that and keep him on pace with Brady's two Super Bowl wins in first four seasons. And not that Brady needs to add anything to his cv to solidify goat status, but winning in his first year after leaving the pats and Belichick to a team that finished 7-9 the year before, would be a fecking amazing accomplishment. Looking forward to a great game on Feb 7.
Click to expand...
Will certainly be an interesting contest
Think buccs need to score a TD first like yesterday
 
With the rumours that mike pettine may be fired by packers / lafleur, makes it even crazier that he took the ball out of the MVPs hands and instead trusted a defence to stop one first down (who were giving up third downs for fun)
 
Line is KC -3 and over is 56.5. I'm not touching this game. If I was forced to bet, I'd prolly take KC -166 moneyline but their o-line situation scares me.
 
Man of Leisure said:
Line is KC -3 and over is 56.5. I'm not touching this game. If I was forced to bet, I'd prolly take KC -166 moneyline but their o-line situation scares me.
Click to expand...
The under is the only one I’d feel okay about betting on there. Bucs DL + KC OL lends itself to a low-scoring game even if KC still wins.
 


Ken Dorsey as Dolphins OC? That might be interesting. Could also be absolutely nothing, but as they have waited this long it would make sense if they had an agreement to hire someone from a playoff team
 
Last edited:
What I never understand is why people are so quick to focus on Super Bowl wins as the ultimate determinant of the GOAT debate. The amount of Super Bowls won by a QB is just an extension of QB Wins, and QB Wins is an absolutely terrible argument. QB is by far and away the most important position, but just because you have a good QB doesn't mean you're a good team. In recent years, we've seen teams with Jared Goff and Jimmy Garoppolo make the Super Bowl and no-one would call these two elite QBs. Peyton Manning was washed as a QB and he still won a Super Bowl with the '15 Broncos. On the flip side, you had Deshaun Watson having an elite season this year and yet the Texans went 4-12. It just goes to show that attributing the success or failure of a team to one player on a roster of 53 with multiple coaches might not be the smartest idea.

And besides, why did the NFL not consistently recognise Tom Brady as the best QB in the league? 3 MVPs, 3 First-Team All-Pros, and 2 Second-Team All-Pros for Brady versus 5 MVPs, 7 First-Team All-Pros, and 3 Second-Team All-Pros for Peyton Manning. And then you have to remember that the MVP went to Shaun Alexander, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Adrian Peterson in '05, '06, and '12; it's difficult to justify why these RBs won MVPs and Manning didn't other than the fact they were sick of giving the MVP to Manning (Similar to the NBA with LeBron and what will probably happen soon enough in the NFL with Mahomes).

And before anyone says that MVP is a regular season stat and the post-season matters more, how about we consider the seeding of the Brady-era Patriots and the seeding of the Manning-era Colts/Broncos:
2001: Patriots #2 - NE wins Super Bowl
2002: Colts #5
2003: Patriots #1, Colts #3 - NE wins Super Bowl - Manning wins Co-MVP
2004: Patriots #2, Colts #3 - NE wins Super Bowl - Manning wins MVP
2005: Colts #1, Patriots #4
2006: Colts #3, Patriots #4 - IND wins Super Bowl
2007: Patriots #1, Colts #2 - Brady wins MVP
2008: Colts #5 - Manning wins MVP
2009: Colts #1, Patriots #3 - Manning wins MVP
2010: Patriots #1, Colts #3 - Brady wins MVP
2011: Patriots #1
2012: Broncos #1, Patriots #2
2013: Broncos #1, Patriots #2 - Manning wins MVP
2014: Patriots #1, Broncos #2 - NE wins Super Bowl
2015: Broncos #1, Patriots #2 - DEN wins Super Bowl
2016: Patriots #1 - NE wins Super Bowl
2017: Patriots #1 - Brady wins MVP
2018: Patriots #2 - NE wins Super Bowl
2019: Patriots #3

Out of New England's 6 Super Bowl wins, they were seeded #1 three times and #2 three times; across 19 seasons, they were seeded #1 seven times and #2 six times. Out of Manning's 2 Super Bowl wins, his teams were seeded #3 and #1. Over the 15 seasons there where he was in the league, his teams were #1 five times and #2 two times. So Brady's teams got a first-round bye 13 times whereas Manning's teams got it 7 times. Furthermore, when Manning won his first two MVPs, NE beat IND in the Play-Offs both times in Foxborough as they had the higher seeding; Manning was the better QB but the Patriots were the better team.

I also think that during his 20 years in NE, Brady played 8 away Play-Off games in total, going 4-4. To put this in perspective, he played in 9 Super Bowls, meaning he played in more Super Bowls than away games. So his total record in the Play-Offs was 20-4 at home, 4-4 away, and 6-3 in Super Bowls. Looks to me that a lot of his post-season success is attributable to playing a lot of home Play-Off games.

Ultimately, I think people put way too much emphasis on the Super Bowls wins argument as it's just an extension of the QB Wins argument. Brady and Manning were both generationally good QBs, as were Marino and Montana. And Montana and Brady also have better post-season records than Marino and Manning for the same reason; Marino and Manning played with good players and a good coaching staff, whereas Montana and Brady played with good players and and two of the greatest NFL coaches of all time in Bill Walsh and Bill Belichick. So really, I feel people spend way too much time attributing most of New England's success to Brady when the real reason why he won 6 Super Bowls and Manning didn't is due to Brady playing on superior teams.
 
Rawls said:
What I never understand is why people are so quick to focus on Super Bowl wins as the ultimate determinant of the GOAT debate.
Click to expand...
If it was the "ultimate determinant", there wouldn't really be a debate and it would be a consensus Brady pick, which it isn't right now. I feel like it's one of the determinants, and more so important for QBs in the NFL rather than for LeBron in the NBA because of the importance of the position compared to other sports.

I also think that during his 20 years in NE, Brady played 8 away Play-Off games in total, going 4-4. To put this in perspective, he played in 9 Super Bowls, meaning he played in more Super Bowls than away games. So his total record in the Play-Offs was 20-4 at home, 4-4 away, and 6-3 in Super Bowls. Looks to me that a lot of his post-season success is attributable to playing a lot of home Play-Off games.
Click to expand...
It's a simple fact that playing at home has its advantages in the playoffs, for Brady probably coupled with the fact that he had an extra week rest with all those byes. I don't think that counts as an argument against him, everyone knows that home field advantage is a thing and that's why you win as much games in the regular season as you possibly can. The fact that he played 24 home games compared to 8 away games proves that he consistently got it done during the regular season. Yeah, winning in Foxborough was probably easier than away from home, but so what?

So really, I feel people spend way too much time attributing most of New England's success to Brady when the real reason why he won 6 Super Bowls and Manning didn't is due to Brady playing on superior teams.
Click to expand...
This might've held up in the past but Brady went 12-4 with the Pats last season and they just went 7-9 with the same coach and (largely) the same players. Missed the playoffs for the first time in an eternity while the only big change is Brady not being there anymore.

I feel like it's not really something "tangible" with Brady that you can attribute his success to, but it's hard to say that he's had two fecking decades of luck to get to all those Super Bowls and get all those regular season wins, all those regular season records, ... The longer he does it, the more signs point towards him being the GOAT or at least him deserving to be the leading candidate. If you don't go by Super Bowls, you might look at wins, and he's probably first there too. You think wins are a crap criterium, you go to the all-time rankings, and he's right up there at #1 or #2 as well because of his longevity. So what are the real arguments against him? Those Tweets above that he's an anomaly in the playoffs when it comes to winning games where a QB plays badly? Doesn't hold up for me.

I get that Aaron Rodgers passes the eye test a lot better than Brady when you talk about GOAT QBs. He might be the most talented ever as well, and whatever accolades you could think of, he probably deserves it as well. But Rodgers just had his FIRST Conference Finals game at Lambeau in what, 15 years? He's now also 1-4 in Conference Finals games. Are we gonna fully write that down to him not being supported enough by his team? Or when exactly is the onus gonna fall on Rodgers himself? I don't agree that you can point to Rodgers and Brees and say "they're not supported enough, let down by their D" or whatever arguments people use as excuses, yet when it comes down to Brady, his success is down to his superior teams. Tampa hadn't been a superior team in almost two decades, Arians was always regarded as a good coach but couldn't get it done in the playoffs either. Now they've had Brady and they're in the Super Bowl. Can you imagine them in the SB this year if Brady doesn't join them? Absolutely not.

I don't like writing all these arguments in favor of Brady at all, but you can always find arguments against a QB if you want to. Fact remains that he's going to his 10th Super Bowl and is leading (or will catch Brees next season) almost every single one important QB stats ranking. The longer he does it, the harder it gets to deny him his GOAT status.
 
A difference of five wins between a bad quarterback and a good quarterback isn't all that surprising really though, that shouldn't be a factor in this debate at all.
 
altodevil said:
A difference of five wins between a bad quarterback and a good quarterback isn't all that surprising really though, that shouldn't be a factor in this debate at all.
Click to expand...
It's not "surprising" as such but it proves that it was Brady who made a good NE team a superior or a great one - and not that he benefited from being a "passable QB" on a great team or anything like that, should someone suggest or think that.
 
RobinLFC said:
If it was the "ultimate determinant", there wouldn't really be a debate and it would be a consensus Brady pick, which it isn't right now. I feel like it's one of the determinants, and more so important for QBs in the NFL rather than for LeBron in the NBA because of the importance of the position compared to other sports.
Click to expand...
I actually disagree here. There are only 5 starters on an NBA team, so you would think that it would be much easier for one NBA player to carry the rest of his team to glory than a QB. LeBron single-handedly carried the Cavs to an NBA Finals they had no right to be in 2007; I can't think of many NFL examples where a QB carried a team on his back to a Super Bowl. Similarly, the pitcher in baseball is surely a more significant position to his team than the QB is to his team. For a pitcher, there is a simple one-on-one relationship at all times between him and the batter; I don't think the outfielders are really that consequential to a team's defense. On the other hand, the output of a QB is dependent on his OL, his WRs, his TEs, his RBs, his offensive play-calling, the opposition's DL, the opposition's LB's, the opposition's secondary, and the opposition's defensive play-calling. So there is a lot that affects the end result that doesn't go through the QB.

RobinLFC said:
It's a simple fact that playing at home has its advantages in the playoffs, for Brady probably coupled with the fact that he had an extra week rest with all those byes. I don't think that counts as an argument against him, everyone knows that home field advantage is a thing and that's why you win as much games in the regular season as you possibly can. The fact that he played 24 home games compared to 8 away games proves that he consistently got it done during the regular season. Yeah, winning in Foxborough was probably easier than away from home, but so what?
Click to expand...
To be fair though, I wasn't arguing that he didn't get it done in the regular season, he did win 3 MVPs after all. My point was that Manning was generally regarded as a better regular-season QB but his teams ended up with a worse seeding. So if Manning was the better regular-season QB and the Patriots were the better regular-season team, then Brady was by extension playing with more talent than Manning. The point I would then argue is that if Brady had have played on worse team with worse seedings, would he have won as many Super Bowls? I'm not arguing as such that he's not an all-time great because you have to be an all-time great if you win that many Super Bowls. But you can be an all-time great as well without winning 6 Super Bowls. I just think that the reason why Brady and Montana have 6 and 4 Super Bowl rings versus Manning's 2 and Marino's 0 is that Brady and Montana had a better team around them in general.

RobinLFC said:
I feel like it's not really something "tangible" with Brady that you can attribute his success to, but it's hard to say that he's had two fecking decades of luck to get to all those Super Bowls and get all those regular season wins, all those regular season records, ... The longer he does it, the more signs point towards him being the GOAT or at least him deserving to be the leading candidate. If you don't go by Super Bowls, you might look at wins, and he's probably first there too. You think wins are a crap criterium, you go to the all-time rankings, and he's right up there at #1 or #2 as well because of his longevity. So what are the real arguments against him? Those Tweets above that he's an anomaly in the playoffs when it comes to winning games where a QB plays badly? Doesn't hold up for me.
Click to expand...
He's #1 at 230-69, and then Favre and Manning are next at 186-112 and 186-79. But I don't see how this changes the thrust of the argument. Yes, Brady won more than anyone else and is definitely an all-time great. But did he win more than Manning/Marino/Favre because he was a better QB than them or did he win more because he played on better teams? If you think the gap is attributable to Brady being better QBs, then fair enough but while Tony Dungy was a good HC, I don't think he really compares to Bill Belichick, not withstanding that Manning played for worse HCs like Jim Mora and John Fox.

RobinLFC said:
I get that Aaron Rodgers passes the eye test a lot better than Brady when you talk about GOAT QBs. He might be the most talented ever as well, and whatever accolades you could think of, he probably deserves it as well. But Rodgers just had his FIRST Conference Finals game at Lambeau in what, 15 years? He's now also 1-4 in Conference Finals games. Are we gonna fully write that down to him not being supported enough by his team? Or when exactly is the onus gonna fall on Rodgers himself? I don't agree that you can point to Rodgers and Brees and say "they're not supported enough, let down by their D" or whatever arguments people use as excuses, yet when it comes down to Brady, his success is down to his superior teams. Tampa hadn't been a superior team in almost two decades, Arians was always regarded as a good coach but couldn't get it done in the playoffs either. Now they've had Brady and they're in the Super Bowl. Can you imagine them in the SB this year if Brady doesn't join them? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I don't think I argued that the other QBs were badly supported as such, and I apologise if I did make that argument. What I did argue was that the other QBs were not as well-supported as Brady was. Manning had Dungy as HC, Edgerrin James at RB, Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne at WR, Saturday, Lilja, and Glenn on the OL, Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis on the edge, and Bob Sanders at Safety. Manning was well-supported, there's no arguing that. But what I am arguing is that Brady played with equal if not better team-mates and more importantly, played with one of the greatest HCs of all-time.

For the record, prior to Bakhtiari going down, GB had one of the best OLs in the NFL this year, and Rodgers does have Adams, Jones, and Tonyan on offense, plus Alexander and Clark on defense, so I am not arguing that his supporting-cast let him down. And for Brees, this year NO has one of the best non-QB rosters in the league plus Payton as HC so I'm not arguing that he was badly-supported either. Even in years gone by, it's not as if GB and NO have had dirt-poor rosters. But just because they didn't have dirt-poor rosters doesn't mean that their roster plus coaching staff were of comparable quality to NE. For NE to win as much as they did, Brady had to be one of the all-time greats but they needed more, specifically good players plus one of the greatest HCs of all-time.

On Tampa, yes, Brady has been a major improvement on Winston. But for them to get to the SB, they needed more than just Brady. They have Godwin and Evans at WR, the best RT in the league as a rookie in Wirfs, other good OL in Jensen and Marpet, Vea and Suh on the Interior DL, one of the best edge-rusher duos in the league in Pierre-Paul and Barrett, a great LB corps in David and White, and then a solid secondary, not withstanding good coaching, especially from Todd Bowles. But when I was on Twitter in the immediate aftermath of the game, I don't see much recognition of the fact that Tampa Bay were a well-coached team with solid talent all over the roster. Instead, it focuses in on Brady. And it had always been like that. Go back to Super Bowl LIII when the Pats beat the Rams; I remember reading an article in the Guardian (Not an American media outlet tbf) going on how Brady was the GOAT. Brady wasn't even that good that game; the defense and Belichick were the real stars. Yet there was no real recognition of that in the article. Instead, they were focusing on how great Brady was. That's ultimately what I see as the problem. Yes, Brady is one of the all-time greats, but I feel too many people are too quick to heap praise on him when he couldn't have won 6 SBs without his supporting-cast or Belichick.
 
RobinLFC said:
It's not "surprising" as such but it proves that it was Brady who made a good NE team a superior or a great one - and not that he benefited from being a "passable QB" on a great team or anything like that, should someone suggest or think that.
Click to expand...
Winning 7 games with the worst quarterback in the league suggests the team unit is pretty good to me. But that's another matter.

 
The value of Brady isn't just shown by how TB improved from 7-9 to 11-5. But also by how the Pats went from being 12-4 to 7-9 without him. With Brady, there's no doubt in my mind the Pats make the playoffs.
 
Without Brady, Pats limped to 7 wins whilst Tampa go from missing the playoffs to getting to the SB. To deny or understate Brady’s abilities, qualities & impact on the successes his teams have had over the last 19 years he’s been a starter is laughable.
 
I don’t want any part of this debate, but that Pats team was different from the one before. They had key losses to FA and the most opt-outs of any team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.