NFL Thread 2014-2015

Wittmann45 said:


:lol:

That's really great. It's amazing how late that dude on the left hand side in the Wilson jersey realized it was an interception. It took him about 10 seconds to realize what happened

I'm a defeated and deflated football fan...the only time I find any joy is in watching other sets of fans suffer the misery I have

Hope they have a good return policy wherever they all bought those brand new nice jerseys
Click to expand...


Everyone knows a guy like the bald-headed feck in the white 25 Sherman jersey. Those wankers annoy the shit out of me and are the biggest shit talkers and then first to be silenced/exit/start a fight when their team loses.

Edit: Watching their collective reactions at the end was probably like the whole of Liverpool last season.
 
Last edited:
MrMarcello said:
Mike Greenberg was talking about how Seattle's defense can't be considered for greatest ever because they gave up all those yards to Brady, especially in the fourth quarter, and lost. He said that the 85 Bears wouldn't have allowed a comeback like that. That's conjecture.

First off, the 13 Seahawks and 85 Bears both won the SB in dominating fashion.

Secondly, the 85 Bears played an average Patriots side while the 13 Seahawks played a record-setting Broncos side (still for my money the biggest beat down in SB history considering all factors; everyone knew Chicago would win in a rout, and they were likely fortunate NE knocked off Miami).

Thirdly, the 14 Seahawks repeated as conference champions while the 86 Bears choked (the 86 Bears defense was better than the previous side, statistically and continuity wise).

Finally, I have no doubts Brady could have done the same against the 85 Bears, all factors considered. He did so against the 14 Seahawks, and Marino did so against the 85 Bears in Week 13, putting up 31 first half points, and 270 yds and 3 tds (high passing totals in those days) in a 38-24 win, Chicago's only loss that season.

Btw, San Francisco was closer to going unbeaten in 1984, losing in week 7 at home to Pittsburgh, 20-17. I'd still rate the 84 and 89 49ers and 07 Pats as better than the 72 Dolphins and 85 Bears. But as previously noted, the 85 Bears became media darlings and fan favorites and have been over-hyped for years, great one season side they were (00 Ravens had the best single season defense ever IMO).
Click to expand...

That's some good memory you have there. I'd be interested to hear what age you are. I was 10 when I started supporting the patriots in 1985, around that time.

I remember they were a huge surprise to make the Superbowl that year. I started supporting them because I liked their uniforms and wore the same colour as Man Utd. It was the biggest Superbowl defeat of all time until Denver got walloped by SF a few years later. But I don't remember much more than that, obviously, because I was 10!
 
JustAFan said:
Joe never lost a Superbowl
Click to expand...

MrMarcello said:
This is true, neither did Aikman, Bradshaw, Dilfer, Plunkett, Rodgers, ... but Joe Cool was clutch and a great player to watch. That second time against the Bengals showed his calmness, coolness, and leadership, and established his legacy. He also never faced a top class defense in his four SB trips, unless one considers the 89 Broncos a "top class defense" having had the fortune of playing in a very shitty AFC. That's not really his fault either.
Click to expand...

How can people say Joe Montana has a better Superbowl record than Brady? So essentially its better for your legacy if you lose BEFORE the Superbowl? Brady would have been better off losing those two AFC championship games?
 
Anderson's Cat said:
That's some good memory you have there. I'd be interested to hear what age you are. I was 10 when I started supporting the patriots in 1985, around that time.

I remember they were a huge surprise to make the Superbowl that year. I started supporting them because I liked their uniforms and wore the same colour as Man Utd. It was the biggest Superbowl defeat of all time until Denver got walloped by SF a few years later. But I don't remember much more than that, obviously, because I was 10!
Click to expand...

Around the same age and started watching the NFL circa 83. Outside a handful of Danny White/Dallas Cowboy memories in the early 80s (born in Texas and the whole family were big Dallas supporters), I recall the Marcus Allen touchdown run in 83 (actually Jan 84) and some of the games the following year including a few parts of the Miami-SF Super Bowl (vividly remember a Roger Craig score).

I don't recall the actual Chicago-Miami game but have seen highlights of it numerous times. I do recall the Chicago-NE Super Bowl. Chicago had lost to SF in the NFCCG the prior year so they were considered right up there as favorites.
 
Anderson's Cat said:
How can people say Joe Montana has a better Superbowl record than Brady? So essentially its better for your legacy if you lose BEFORE the Superbowl? Brady would have been better off losing those two AFC championship games?
Click to expand...

I don't really think one can. 4-0 is better than 4-2 or 3-1 or 3-0 or whatever, save someone going 5-0 or better. Aikman had a great shot at winning four or more until Jerry fecked it all up by firing Jimmy, then killing the cap through Deion, and not drafting the likes of Gonzalez and/or Moss; Brady did too until they lost.

The only argument one could make is that Brady twice (against NYG) left the field late in the fourth quarter with his side holding a slim lead only for his defense to lose it. When he came back on the field he had little clock to work with; 2007- 0:35 ball at NE 26 down 4; 2011- 0:57 ball at NE 20 down 3.

Brady could very well have been 6-0 with a few plays here or there (Tyree catch; Welker drop then Manningham catch, ugh). Flip side is he could be 0-6 as all of the games he's started have been close: W 20-17 Rams, W 32-29 Panthers, W 24-21 Eagles, L 21-17 Giants, L 17-14 Giants, W 28-24 Seahawks.

Afterthought (edit): You mentioned losing the AFCCG instead of the SB... that's probably better off when talking about QB SB records. People don't give credit/rip Kelly, Tarkenton, even Elway for SB losses. Would they have been better off never making it, like Fouts and others?

Montana was 4-2 in NFCCGs and 0-1 in AFCCGs, Brady is 6-3 in AFCCGs. Very close win percentages yet Brady's side had nearly twice the opportunities to potentially win a championship. Should this factor? I dunno. We're obsessed with championship game wins versus overall contexts. I do it with Peyton vs Tom debates but it's fairly obvious Tom has done much more outside statistics. Kinda like the Marino vs Montana debates I guess.
 
Last edited:
Montana was better than Brady, but 4-2 is better than 4-0.
 
MrMarcello said:
I don't really think one can. 4-0 is better than 4-2 or 3-1 or 3-0 or whatever, save someone going 5-0 or better. Aikman had a great shot at winning four or more until Jerry fecked it all up by firing Jimmy, then killing the cap through Deion, and not drafting the likes of Gonzalez and/or Moss; Brady did too until they lost.

The only argument one could make is that Brady twice (against NYG) left the field late in the fourth quarter with his side holding a slim lead only for his defense to lose it. When he came back on the field he had little clock to work with; 2007- 0:35 ball at NE 26 down 4; 2011- 0:57 ball at NE 20 down 3.

Brady could very well have been 6-0 with a few plays here or there (Tyree catch; Welker drop then Manningham catch, ugh). Flip side is he could be 0-6 as all of the games he's started have been close: W 20-17 Rams, W 32-29 Panthers, W 24-21 Eagles, L 21-17 Giants, L 17-14 Giants, W 28-24 Seahawks.

Afterthought (edit): You mentioned losing the AFCCG instead of the SB... that's probably better off when talking about QB SB records. People don't give credit/rip Kelly, Tarkenton, even Elway for SB losses. Would they have been better off never making it, like Fouts and others?

Montana was 4-2 in NFCCGs and 0-1 in AFCCGs, Brady is 6-3 in AFCCGs. Very close win percentages yet Brady's side had nearly twice the opportunities to potentially win a championship. Should this factor? I dunno. We're obsessed with championship game wins versus overall contexts. I do it with Peyton vs Tom debates but it's fairly obvious Tom has done much more outside statistics. Kinda like the Marino vs Montana debates I guess.
Click to expand...

Trying to get to a definitive answer on who is better between Montana and Brady is next to impossible. They are both the best for so many different reasons. Who is first and second is not relevant really. But as there have pointed out, being to 6 superbowl and losing 2 isn't really a stick to downgrade Brady with against Montana.

I would say though that Brady can now safely be considered above Manning. I thought that anyway, regardless of the SB. It's easy to get lost in the stats in a Brady Manning debate, but outside of that the differences are so vast. The difference in post season records IMO epitomises what separates Brady from Manning.
 
I'm going for Brady (and I may be somewhat biased) for what he has achieved with less. What would Brady have accomplished throwing to the best wide receiver of all time in his time? Jerry Rice caught 68 TD passes from Montana.

I won't say Brady is the most talented. I think Manning has more natural talent but I think if you combine work ethic, game management, clutch performances & stats, Brady edges it.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
well, they were luck to get past GB to start with. They are a good team, but the final 2 games were not their best. Wilson was crap and performing in patches when it counts. Suicide by GB and a lucky Kearse catch made them look better than they actually were in post season.
Click to expand...

well yea Greenbay game is a totally different game. I can't say things didn't go our way when the dice were rolled. But then we shouldn't have even had the opportunity to do that Wilson was so bad. The defensive side did a great job. I disagree about luck in the SB game though. I thought we were good for a lot of it. You are entitled to your opinion though.
 
Came across this great stat today:

"In fact the most important stat of the 2014 NFL season may be this one, regarding New England's defense: The Patriots did not allow a fourth-quarter touchdown in their final nine games."
Click to expand...

That's incredible play from the D! It's always been about Brady and the offense, but no doubt this season our defense has had some huge games and made the big plays when it mattered most.
 
ha_rooney said:
Came across this great stat today:



That's incredible play from the D! It's always been about Brady and the offense, but no doubt this season our defense has had some huge games and made the big plays when it mattered most.
Click to expand...

Ultimately I think this year has been a great all around team performance by us. Everyone has contributed in all phases on some level.
 
Wow New England fans. Win Super Bowl, have a focus on Seattle on your parade and spend pages on Redcafe bitching too. Liverpool-esque.
 
Phil said:
Wow New England fans. Win Super Bowl, have a focus on Seattle on your parade and spend pages on Redcafe bitching too. Liverpool-esque.
Click to expand...
That's the media shit stirring as usual. There was one or two little things like Blount and the Lynch t-shirt but watch the entire parade and you'll see little else. And don't say Seattle (Sherman etc) wouldn't have been twice as bad had they won.
 
Talk of 'greatest ever' players surely shouldn't come down to the number of rings they won?

It's like suggesting O'Shea was better than Gerrard which, although funny, obviously isn't the case.

I'm too new to the sport to have any informed opinion on the matter, but from what I've seen Brady certainly is extremely good. I still prefer Peyton though, naturally.
 
MrMarcello said:
This is true, neither did Aikman, Bradshaw, Dilfer, Plunkett, Rodgers, ... but Joe Cool was clutch and a great player to watch. That second time against the Bengals showed his calmness, coolness, and leadership, and established his legacy. He also never faced a top class defense in his four SB trips, unless one considers the 89 Broncos a "top class defense" having had the fortune of playing in a very shitty AFC. That's not really his fault either.
Click to expand...

I was just joking with that comment. Joe did have an advantage in that the AFC was not very good during the 1980's, but on the other hand he had to deal with the NFC which had some fantastic teams. In most seasons in the 80's the NFC Championship game was viewed as the match up of the two best teams in football. You had Joe Gibbs's Washington Redskins, you had Parcells Giants, even the Bears were good for several year and had an awesome defense.

Was watching one of the NFL talk shows on ESPN once and they were discussing who was the greatest QB of all time. One guy, forget who, did admit it really is impossible to answer, since really the only way to prove it is to switch the QB's around (in their prime) and see how they do with the other guys team? IE would Dan Marino at the 49ers won as many titles as Joe Montana or would Joe Montana have won 4 Super Bowls with the Miami Dolphins? Now this is not entirely a good way either, since lets face it football is a team game and not just about the QB. The running game, receivers, defense, offensive line, etc all have a say in who wins.

There really is no way to settle it, but it makes for some fun discussion.
 
Last edited:
Brady never would have made it this far in the era tha Montana played.He hasn't faced defenses that had no illegal contact rules. The Eagles,Giants,and Bears beat the hell out of Montana and even though he took hits that would shorten careers, he still managed to get to 4 Super Bowls and win them all.
Also,Montana with an 18-0 team and favored by 12 pts in the Super Bowl never would have lost like Brady did to an inferior Giants team.
 
njred said:
Brady never would have made it this far in the era tha Montana played.He hasn't faced defenses that had no illegal contact rules. The Eagles,Giants,and Bears beat the hell out of Montana and even though he took hits that would shorten careers, he still managed to get to 4 Super Bowls and win them all.
Also,Montana with an 18-0 team and favored by 12 pts in the Super Bowl never would have lost like Brady did to an inferior Giants team.
Click to expand...

Very lopsided analysis, really.
 
njred said:
Brady never would have made it this far in the era tha Montana played.He hasn't faced defenses that had no illegal contact rules. The Eagles,Giants,and Bears beat the hell out of Montana and even though he took hits that would shorten careers, he still managed to get to 4 Super Bowls and win them all.
Also,Montana with an 18-0 team and favored by 12 pts in the Super Bowl never would have lost like Brady did to an inferior Giants team.
Click to expand...

He never had to deal with the salary cap though. Or had the talent Montana had around him.

See, it's a circular argument which is never ever gonna be solved, barring Brady winning another ring. Two different era's.

Not aimed at you njred, but at the discussion in general
 
Rado_N said:
Talk of 'greatest ever' players surely shouldn't come down to the number of rings they won?

It's like suggesting O'Shea was better than Gerrard which, although funny, obviously isn't the case.

I'm too new to the sport to have any informed opinion on the matter, but from what I've seen Brady certainly is extremely good. I still prefer Peyton though, naturally.
Click to expand...

First off, why would anyone compare O'Shea to Gerrard to begin with?

Secondly, Gerrard/Lampard/Scholes is the most oft comparison and trophies won is obviously factored in.

Finally, in US sports the rings won is often a debate decider, rightly or not.
 
MrMarcello said:
First off, why would anyone compare O'Shea to Gerrard to begin with?

Secondly, Gerrard/Lampard/Scholes is the most oft comparison and trophies won is obviously factored in.

Finally, in US sports the rings won is often a debate decider, rightly or not.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't, it was an exaggerated example to underline my point.

As for 'rightly or not' (the 'so there' was seemingly implied), my point is that in my opinion it's not right. Team results shouldn't be the deciding factor in a question of individual ability.
 
Its only when a player has retired that you see his true value. Its kinda like Fergie, now that he's gone. I think Brady and Montana will sit atop the pile for years to come until another outstanding QB comes along.
 
Rado_N said:
They wouldn't, it was an exaggerated example to underline my point.

As for 'rightly or not' (the 'so there' was seemingly implied), my point is that in my opinion it's not right. Team results shouldn't be the deciding factor in a question of individual ability.
Click to expand...

I don't think that a team result should be a deciding factor, no. But, it's something that can elevate an individual.

Also, the NFL is very different to football in the sense that the QB does have a significant say in the outcome of a team's performance. I think the QB as an individual has a much greater influence over a team than in any other team sport.

At the end of the day, Brady vs Montana was a debate that was going around for years. The number of super bowls isn't the sole deciding factor but it is a factor nonetheless. And I don't disagree with the notion that it should be a factor, particularly given the level of influence a QB has on the game.
 
Anderson's Cat said:
Its only when a player has retired that you see his true value. Its kinda like Fergie, now that he's gone. I think Brady and Montana will sit atop the pile for years to come until another outstanding QB comes along.
Click to expand...

I think when Brady is gone people will realise how good he was, I agree.

In terms of who is the overall "GOAT", I don't like that question, I don't like that question in any sport for that matter. At the very best, all you can ever really have is a "top bracket" because the very best 5 players in a sport are all going to be players who have very fine margins in between them and who have all in some way revolutionised the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.