Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Well, its a new year so new thread.

Rams made a huge trade with the titans today. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15201946/tennessee-titans-trade-no-1-pick-los-angeles-rams

Titans get: 2016 15th pick - 43(2nd round), 45(2nd round), 76(3rd round); 2017 1st Rd and 3rd Rd

Rams gets: 2016 No. 1 pick, 113(4th Round), 177(6th round)

Big move for rams.

I'm still on the fence over this trade. Its two 2nd round picks, 2 third round picks, and only 1 first round pick actually given up in total since they swap this year. Not really a bad trade on the rams part. However, they are giving up one first round draft prospect, two 2nd round prospects, 2 3rd round prospects, all for one prospect. I don't know if any potential prospect is worth that much.

You can ONLY make this trade if you are doing it for a Luck or a Manning...

and by all accounts Wentz and Goff are not that.

So time will tell...

if you're a Titans fan... you have to be over the moon happy...especially since they didn't have a clear cut pick at 1 anyway.

With the ridiculous trade the Eagles made...

I didn't even realize they gave Chase Daniel 21 million for three years to now be the third string QB...

Sometimes these teams really make you wonder...

I just heard that US Court of Appeals has re-instated Brady's suspension.

Yup. 4 games is back on.

Brady could appeal to the 2nd Circuit or the Supremes, for those wondering....but chances of them taking a case like this are pretty slim.

Interestingly, in the 2-1 decision today, the only dissenting opinion was NOT that the Goodell didn't have the right to institute the suspension (or that he overstepped his authority at all), but that he didn't consider a lesser, more reasonable, penalty more grounded in league precedent.  Given that dissent...grounds for appeal are even less.  They'd have to argue the US court of appeals fundamentally misunderstood the CBA, pretty much in its entirety, in their ruling.

Yeah, it pretty much sounds like the NFL "won" in a landslide here and that Brady's chances from here on out are bleak at best. The NFL gave Goodell this supreme power, so they have to deal with. Like a madman running wild. He can abuse his power and hand out overly harsh penalties at will. It is what it is.

Yeah, at this point the Pats should just take the suspension.  Personally I don't agree with him getting 4 games, i think its way overboard, especially since they are yet to prove  he did it.  Look I think we all think he was  most likely "generally  aware", but it should take more than that to get a 4 game suspension.

Either way the Pats should just let this go and get on with it.    Let him miss the first 4 games, they are the Patriots, it's not like they are going to go 0-4 here.  Looking at the schedule they are at worst going to go 2-2 possibly even 3-1 considering how inconsistent Rex Ryan teams are.  The opener against Arizona is going to be a loss, but the other 3 are very winnable games.  Then Brady will come back and will literally scorch the earth like he typically does when he is trying to prove something.  This team might not go 13-3 this year but they are still winning that division, and are favorites to reach the Super Bowl again.

Yeah, as a Pats fan I hate to "give up" after all this. But you have to know when to say when. It looks like an unwinnable situation. I'm preparing myself to see what Jimmy G can do in the first four games. If he plays well, he could increase his trade value and get them a possible first round pick the next year. After seeing what the Eagles and Rams gave up to draft completely unproven QB's, the potential is certainly there. Of course if he doesn't play well, the opposite could be true. They do have 3 home games after opening in Arizona, so that should help soften the blow. I still think they win the AFC East easy. The Steelers could take advantage of those 4 games in terms of having a better record come season's end. I think they're clearly the top 2 teams in the AFC. Not sure what to expect from Denver this year. No other team looks that great

That's been my thing right along.

I 100% think he was probably generally aware.  YMMV on that front.

I think the fair penalty in all this is the equipment tampering fine...which is...what...50k per instance at the time? Or was it 20k? Either way, it's a fine somewhere betweek 200k and 500k.  And if you want to cut Brady in directly on something, it's a fine and MAYBE 1 game (and even that I think is overly-tough).

BUT, having said that....the CBA says what it says, and it give Goodell VERY broad authority in the "protection of the game/wellbeing of the game" section.  And so...if he thinks it's 4 game worthy...it's 4 game worthy.

And if the players union dislikes that.....they should bargain it out in the next CBA. All the lawsuits and the suing and shit has to stop.  I get the union, and players, don't like what Goodell has done in some spots..and they've even won a couple times.  But it's GOT TO STOP.  It's bad for the game on BOTH sides, even if the players don't see it.  The NFLPA/players reputation is in the toilet (and so is the NFLs, given the concussion stuff).  This just continues to tarnish both sides.

Figure it out in the next CBA and both sides gotta deal.

Brady is supposedly reviewing his options, but it doesn't appear that he's ready to throw in the towel just yet. Again though, his options seem to be limited at this point. I think at one time the NFL MAY have been willing to work together to maybe reduce the suspension, but I think that time has probably passed. Especially since they're in a position of power right now. I don't see why they'd all of a sudden back down at this point.

Here are hs options:

1) appeal to the 2nd circuit court of appeals (either a re-hearing by the same panel, or an argument in front of the full court). This is a longshot, given the subject matter. This is not the type of case that they usually take or re-hear, since it involves labor disputes. Its not a criminal or punative civil case.

2) appeal to the supreme court. If 1 is a longshot, ths would be considered the hail mary. I don't see any way this is a constitution case, considering the cba.

3) Quit/retire from the nfl

4) serve his suspension

If he has good lawyers, they will advise him to do #4.  If he has expensive lawyers looking to make a ton of money..they will advise #1....and the case appeal will likely be denied before ever being heard.  The panel would have to see compelling evidence that something was NOT produced during the initial hearing.  The full court would have to conclude the panel acted without full understanding of the CBA.

I know it doesn't work this way, but so far Brady won an appeal and lost an appeal. He's had 2 judges rule in his favor, and 2 against. So there would seem to be some grounds for another appeal to break the tie, in essence. But it seems like a long shot at this point. Especially since Judge Berman has been boxed out from the case going forward. They seem to be going the extra mile to end this once and for all.

In theory could they still negotiate a 2 game sit?

The NFL already proved their point... it was their right as per the CBA.

Brady could finally put this to rest and help his team out by taking 2 games instead of 4. It won't make Brady look guilty in the eyes of the public, because he already and forever will be.

I guess both sides are probably too sick of each other and too "proud" to get that done.

As you noted, it doesn't work that way. 

The higher court over ruled the lower court.

And the dissenting opinion didn't really rule "for" Brady.  He ruled that he thought the NFL should have considered a lesser, more precedent driven, punishment.  That's not exactly ruling "for" Brady....who insists he did nothing wrong and shouldn't have ANY punishment.  The judges dissent is entirely that the NFL has the right to levy punishment to Brady, but that the punishment levied was unfair.

That's the point: There's not much there to try to elevate to a higher court.  You have to find fault with the judgement's basis in the court of appeals, or a constitutional violation.  I think you'd have a hard time finding either.  Certainly, I think it's a tough case to push for a rehearing by the same panel.  And I don't see, in review, the basis for a full court review, which would have to be based on the fact the panel doesn't fully grasp the CBA and missed expressed limits to the NFL Commish's authority.

The Supremes are a pipe dream, IMHO.  I can't see any way it would go to them.

They COULD, but the only reason the NFL would do it is to appear magnanimous and compassionate.  I'm not sure they want to do that.

The ONLY way I can see the NFL being willing to budge is if Brady comes out and admits wrong doing and issues a mea culpa.  THAT might get the NFL to drop a game. MAYBE two if Goodell has had his coffee delievered perfectly by that intern and Mrs. Goodell rocked his world the previous night.

Yeah, I don't see the NFL budging one bit now that they pretty much hold all the cards. The scenario you propose they would probably consider, but I highly doubt Brady would go for it. He's maintained his innocence this whole time, I don't see that changing ever.

Yeah, I agree. I should have added that part.  The only way the NFL budges even a little is a scenario that just isn't ever going to happen. Brady, innocent or not, is never, ever going to admit wrongdoing.  He simply can't. His legacy is actually LESS tarnished by serving an onerous (and most people would consider it unfair) suspension and maintain his innocence than it would be for him to. serve LESS games and admit wrongdoing (whether he did or not). 

At the end of the day, Brady's time in the NFL is definitely coming to the end of it's duration.  He might have, what...5 more years? Maybe?  Yeah...no way he would ever admit anything just to drop a couple games off a suspension, in this scenario.

Can someone explain to me why Dallas would take an RB at #4?  A top 5 pick? REALLY??  I'm baffled (and I'm a Giants fan).  They needed help in the secondary (a lot), there were better options to be had in that type of player (like, for example Ramsey from Florida State), and as good as Elliot is, he's not GOOD ENOUGH to be worth a top 5 pick compared to what Dallas already has.

Pretty much all the picks in the first round made sense (even the Giants...who ended up just taking the best player left on their board, rather than reaching to fill a need).  But this one made me scratch my head.  In today's NFL...taking an RB in the top 10, even, seems like reach, and a wasted pick.

Not overly thrilled with the pick my Steelers made, but there wasn't going to be much left to choose from at #25 anyways :(

Absolutely. I know they needed a RB, but with their O-line as good as it is, they could've settled for a steady veteran who could easily top 1,000 yards if he remains healthy. Their lack of a star RB wasn't the reason they sucked last year. If Romo stays healthy they're right in it. RB's are secondary these days. It's a passing league, why waste money or resources at RB? Doesn't make sense to me either. I'm sure they could use help on the defensive side of the ball.

With all that being said, Elliott could very well win ROY honors next year, but that still wouldn't justify the pick in my mind. How much of an impact will he make on that team? How much better does he make them? I don't think he moves the needle all that much.

Lots of "experts" criticizing the Giants pick too. Does seem like a bit of a reach, but if they loved the guy more than other teams, that's all that matters. Until/unless he's declared a bust eventually of course.

Yes, taking a running back that high in 2016 is very strange.  Running backs taken that high in the draft in recent years are a who's who of busts and players that never reached that potential the team was looking for.  Adrian Peterson is the one exception and the Vikings haven't won anything with him either.  The rule changes the past decade have made this a pass happy league.  I feel with the way the game is played now you can find a decent RB anywhere, you certainly don't use a top 10 pick on one.  I feel the same way about wide receivers. 

I am a believer in building the lines, filling a glaring need,  or taking the best player left on the board, usually in that order.  Dallas didn't do any of those things.  It's a wonder that this team has been stuck in no mans land the last 20 years.  Not bad enough to completely reboot and get a great franchise changing draft pick and not good enough to win anything.  The Giants are my NFC team, so I am not complaining. :hihi:

Yeah, i'm not IN LOVE with the giants pick, but i understand it: the guys they had wanted were gone, before they picked, so they went with the highest guy on their board vs a specific need. 

Tampa took a kicker, wait, what ? Who takes a kicker on their 1st pick  ???

Supposedly the Jets offered their 2 and a 6 to move up to ten for Tunsil... Reese said no...

Which in my opinion was a mistake. Of course if Eli Apple is an all pro... but unfortunately Jerry's track record in the draft outside of Odell is quite terrible.

It wasn't their first pick... but still...

The kicking game is more important these days... but I still think its crazy that they traded up in the draft to do that... not good enough of a team to splurge on luxury such as that.

Not that anyone should be surprised by this, but...Brady's appeal has been denied to be heard by the appeals court, effectively denying the appeal, itself.

He COULD appeal to SCOTUS and try to get an injunction.  I would find it very hard to believe the Supremes would pick this up, given it has limited (if any) constitutional relation.

I imagine they'll continue the appeal process. The NFLPA is not about to admit defeat and bow down to the NFL. This isn't even about Brady anymore, never mind PSI and deflated footballs. This is about the NFLPA's perception that the NFL abuses its power, among other things. It's likely they lose in the end, but I expect them to exhaust all the options that are at their disposal.

He needs to just take his punishment like a man and stop acting like a baby. The SCOTUS has more important shit to worry about then his bruised ego for cheating at a game.

They have exactly one avenue of appeal left: The Supreme Court.

And the supremes get a little testy when you try to appeal things that have no (or very little) constitutional relation.  The NFLPA would do well to tread lightly.  It may behoove them to give up the ghost, rather than trying to walk that path.

And if they DO appeal, first off...I don't see the Supremes issuing an injunction while they decide whether or not to hear it.  And second...I doubt they'd hear it.  If the NFLPA doesn't like the power that resides with the commissioners office for their sport, they should address it in the CB next time...and not try to make the courts bargain for them.

At this point, it's time for Brady and the NFLPA to buck up, take the suspension, bitch about it loudly, and put this on "the list" for the next negotiations.

I agree, but at this point I see no reason for them to fold. They've come this far, so they might as well see it to the end. They likely won't get the results they desire, but what do they have to lose?

What's important to one person may not be as important to another. I know this ceased being about deflated footballs long ago, but if Brady truly believes he did nothing wrong than it makes absolutely zero sense for him to lay down and take punishment for something he didn't do.

I don't think Brady missing 4 games will cripple the Patriots this coming season, but I can't fault a man for doing everything he can to prove his innocence. Obviously you think he's guilty, along with a host of others. I honestly feel if he was guilty he would've given up by now or seriously pushed for a settlement long ago. He wouldn't be the first innocent man to be erroneously convicted of something he didn't do. It's a big deal to him, and that's all that matters.

There are penalties(up to and including being disbarred for the attorneys) for filing a SCOTUS appeal they deem "frivolous" or unrelated to constitutional matters. So, in short, the attorneys risk losing their right to practice law and make a living.

In addition, the reason to fold is exactly the ones previously mentioned: You're wasting the courts time and, in essence, you're now doing more damage to your legacy than you otherwise have (or would have).

I think you have to tread VERY lightly, here or risk doing more damage than any potential upside here, especially given it's a BIG long shot that SCOTUS would hear the case.  It's a risk/reward assessement and, at some point, the risk outweighs the reward.

The Pats and Brady have already end arounded the financial hit Brady would take by serving the suspension this year.  They've minimized the damage it could have on the team by pushing it to the first 4 games, which means they can pretty much overcome anything (even going 0-4) over the next 12.  Honestly, given the probabilities here....taking the 4 now is FAR better than, say, taking it in the 2017-2018 season (because that's probably how long it is til the Supremes would hear it, if they decided to at all).  He'd take a bigger $$ hit, the team would likely be in worse shape in terms of "coping" with his loss, etc.  And if they lose (and they're likely going to lose...SCOTUS has been very, very, very conservative when it comes to messing with any labor agreements in the past, unless they GROSSLY violate the constitution), they'll just have damaged his reputation/legacy even more.

And what's the upside, at this point, to winning?  Compared to that?

There's reason aplenty, guilty or not, to just take the slap, bitch about it (since he's not taking a reduction, he can say whatever he wants about it, and so can his lawyers...no gag rule) to anyone that will listen, and Mo Vaughn.  Given the options left, THATS actually the less risky course, overall.

It now less about "are you guilty" (think what you want, the NFL's is the only opinion that really matters, according to the courts) and more about "can we get a court to say Goodell doesn't have the commish powers we agreed, in the CBA, that he has, to control the sport".

Yeah but this is bigger than Tom Brady right now. Even if he himself thought it was hopeless and better off to just throw up the white flag, I'm not sure the union would go along with that. He'd probably be encouraged to keep up the fight. I'm trusting they know what they're doing and in the end Brady won't miss the last 2 games of the season and the playoffs or something like that.

Bigger than Brady how? It's an arbitration decision. It's is absolutely NOT bigger than him.  It might not be 100% about Brady, BUT...having said that..it's about roughly 1500 people.

You're going to (and they're going to try) to say that it's about unfair labor practices, blah, blah, blah.  But it's not.  That's the smokescreen to try to get it to the Supremes.

It's a labor relation issue, specifically including arbitration.  The Supremes have typically avoided those cases.

Secondary to that, it's a contract dispute.  Again, the Supremes have typically avoided those cases.

As for them knowing what they're doing...we'll agree to disagree, there.  There is ample evidence, up to and including the ACTUAL CBA, that shows otherwise.  The NFLPA should start going to "union lessons" taught by the MLBPA.

And, for the record, I totally think they'll file suit.  And I don't think they'll get a stay from the 2nd circuit, or from Ginsberg (who is in charge of stays on the Supremes side).  And he'll serve the first 4, because, even if the Supremes were to hear it (and I'm pretty sure they won't, but we'll see) , it would be next year before that happens.  And, at that point, it will be a moot point anyway.  The only thing Brady would get back would be the 300k he lost...which wouldn't even cover the costs of the legal proceedings (and yes, I know....they're paid for already by the NFLPA...just pointing out the inequity...though you've probably got a good bit of the rank and file pissed they are paying dues to support these proceedings). The UNION would get a nice precedent, maybe, depending on the wording of the decision..but they might not even get that if, as they have in the past, the Supremes go super narrow on the wording of their decision.

What I'm saying is that...filing suit, getting the stay, having the Supremes hear the case, and LOSING could actually be WORSE than just taking the 4 games, now.  A LOT worse for Brady and the Pats.

  And, FYI, if they lose (and there is pretty much a 95% chance they are going to lose), they've basically just set precedent for all the lower courts to HAVE to rule on the NFLs side, forever and ever, when it comes to these questions of use of power.  Which means, really, the downside could be even WORSE for the union than it is now, because all those little wins they've gotten before?  They'll never, ever, ever get another one if they file with the Supremes and they refuse to hear (thus affirming the lower courts decision), or hear and the union loses.

So, risk/reward falls firmly on "don't file" IMHO.  But they will.  The union, at this point, is going to trumpet and lament their own stupidity forever.

It's "bigger than Brady" in the respect that it no longer has anything to do with Tom Brady deflating footballs. That's all I meant by that.

And I should have stressed that I HOPE the NFLPA is making the right decisions during this process. Obviously they aren't the best run Union going, but all I can do is hope at this point. What other choice do I have?

Brady NOT appealing.

So, there you have it....he'll serve his four games to start this season.

Man, you're fast. Beat me to it. We can finally put this whole charade to bed and see what Jimmy G can do. It'll just be that much more humiliating if the rest of the AFC East finishes well behind the Pats with Brady missing 1/4 of the season. Good luck!

From Tom Brady's Facebook: I'm very grateful for the overwhelming support I've received from Mr. Kraft, the Kraft family, coach Belichick, my coaches and teammates, the NFLPA, my agents, my loving family and most of all, our fans. It has been a challenging 18 months and I have made the difficult decision to no longer proceed with the legal process. I'm going to work hard to be the best player I can be for the New England Patriots and I look forward to having the opportunity to return to the field this fall.

Shefty has me on speed dial. ;)

It looks like it.
I meant to compliment you on your "Mo Vaughn" usage the other day. I thought I was the only one who used that. People rarely understand what I'm talking about when I say it. I get a lot of puzzled looks.

Thanks!

I probably get the same strange looks from people on the other sides of keyboards, too...but I'm not there to see them, so...whatever. :) I think they get it enough to take the audible "equivalent" meaning.

Around this neck of the woods in CT, most people of my age and generation "get it" because, even tho the Yanks/Sox mix is about 50/50, even the Yanks fans are passingly aware of Nomar and Mo level of Sox players.  And the stories that go with them. ;)  And the Sox fans are obviously very familiar.

Edit: What's REALLY funny is I still have a few friends who are Sox fans who will refer to fucking something up as "Bucknering the hell out of it".

Did they say that prior to the 2004 World Series? I couldn't even watch that replay until then. Hurt too much. I had friends in college that were Mets fans and they'd fire up that clip. I'd bolt out of the room as fast as I could. I'm all good with Billy Buck now. I was able to laugh freely at his episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Since High School (90's), generally.

It's reserved for when they really, really, really fuck things up.  Like "The transmission that I fixed but forgot to bolt back down and left in the middle of the highway" or "The server I was trying to back up that I actually ended up formatting and then parking the heads while trying to interupt the format" level of fucking up.

I think by making it their own, it hurt a bit less.

But I have PLENTY for friends who felt like you do.  Who, even AFTER 2004 (but not after the 2nd one), would say "too soon".

Putting a nice bow on deflategate, at least for me.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/were-all-dumber-from-deflate-gate-and-nfls-win-over-tom-brady-230159510.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

Also, I read that the NFLPA is still reviewing its options and may continue its fight to the Supreme Court even without Brady. I didn't even know that was an option, but further proof that this no longer has/had much of anything to do with psi or Tom Brady.

I am really itching for week 1.

Every Sunday at 1 pm is like Christmas.

So, i heard this, too and looked into it. They would file a procedural appeal in regards to article 47. In essence, though, it wouldnt actually effect the suspension, but would be in terms of the legality of that section of the cba. If the supremes heard it, and ruled for the nflpa, going forward that part of the cba would be nullified. But previous usages eould stand.

The issue is, the nfl could then use a tower defense precedent, and say removing article 47 causes the foundation of the tower(contract) to crumble, and nullify the entire cba, forcing everyone to stop work until a new one could be crafted.

Just one woman's opinion. She's been very critical of Goodell all along and pro Patriots. I agree with most of this article, but I don't know if I agree that this is going to ruin his legacy. With as awful as I think he is, the NFL continues to flourish under his reign, and ultimately that matters most. But, I hope she's right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/why-roger-goodell-not-tom-brady-is-deflategates-real-loser/2016/07/19/946c09b2-4dcc-11e6-a422-83ab49ed5e6a_story.html?tid=pm_sports_pop_b

Why Roger Goodell, not Tom Brady, is Deflategate?s real loser


By Sally Jenkins Columnist July 19 at 4:24 PM

Deflategate has always been an inverted scandal. The real attack on the integrity of the game came not from the New England Patriots, but from the NFL commissioner. The real cheat wasn?t Tom Brady, but rather Roger Goodell. The real verdict is that Brady?s Hall of Fame career is unaffected, while Goodell will go down in history as a ruined figure.

Brady will serve an arbitrarily issued four-game suspension to open the season because that?s what is best for his team: It?s smarter to go to training camp next week without any lingering uncertainty or risk of missing crucial late-season games. No doubt it?s easier for Brady to accept because by now he knows that in practical terms and the court of public opinion, he won. Zero evidence showed he ordered anyone to deflate footballs in the 2015 AFC Championship game, and a legion of scientists proved what anyone with a car already knew ? that cold weather causes air pressure to drop in footballs the same as it does in your tires. A seventh grader?s schoolboy experiment made fools of Goodell and his underlings in the league office.

Brady?s suspension will be an asterisk, and it may even help the Patriots, since they get to develop his backup Jimmy Garoppolo. In the long run no one will treat seriously the idea that Brady cheated to win, except the embittered fans of opposing teams who always questioned his character and will continue to do so with no more or less energy than before. The bottom line on his legacy is already set: He?s made six trips to the Super Bowl in just 14 seasons, winning four rings.

The real consequences are for Goodell. Deflategate was his defining moment in history, and it firmly established him as a political bungler and a dunce. His reputation won?t recover. Think about it. Who will ever believe Goodell, on any subject, ever again? Why would anyone listen to him or trust his competence on any matter?

From the start, Goodell acted rashly. He leaped to a conclusion of predetermined guilt without due diligence, and when he was embarrassed by the simple reality of the Ideal Gas Law, he behaved deviously, skewing and misstating facts and testimony. In persecuting Brady for ?conduct detrimental,? he himself performed in a way that completely undermined the public trust in the commissioner?s office.

A commissioner who was fit for the job would have ended Deflategate within a week. He would have announced that there was no way to fairly evaluate ?the preponderance of the evidence? because the NFL?s protocols for handling game balls were so lax that officials had failed to record the inflation measurements in pregame. He would have released the ball-inflation psi data the league collected this season that no doubt shows the effect of weather. Instead Goodell acted secretively and politically. He chose to pursue a bad case as a referendum on his hanging-judge authority. Shamed and reversed on so many mishandled issues, from Bountygate to the Ray Rice domestic violence case, he needed a win more than he wanted to do right. He turned the commissioner?s office into a sandhill.

The supreme irony here is that what was most important to Goodell, his image, has been destroyed. What was second-most important to him, his power, has been severely undermined. Though he won a technical victory when four judges split on whether he acted properly as an arbitrator, in reality he is a fatally weakened commissioner. He may cling to his job title for a while longer, because vain NFL owners don?t like to admit mistakes, but it?s clear they regard Goodell as a liability who needs help. Last summer he was divested of significant responsibility when Tod Leiweke was named chief operating officer of the league, filling a post Goodell had left vacant since his promotion in 2006. The league also hired former White House press secretary Joe Lockhart as vice president of communications, to further cushion Goodell. Lockhart reports to Leiweke.

The owners will be cleaning up the mess Goodell has made for some time. His long-term legacy is as the worst commissioner in the history of the league. His short-term legacy is that he?s brought league business to a halt, made it impossible to make progress on a range of important issues because the players union doesn?t regard him as an honest broker. The league needs the cooperation of the players on everything from expanded playoffs, to a 18-game season, to stadium credits, to proposed changes to off-season workouts. Good luck. Does John Mara really think the union will agree to anything with Roger Goodell?

All of these things will be stickier to resolve, and so will the slow walk to a new labor contract in 2021. Labor negotiations are always a morass, but with Goodell you can count on them to be especially problematic. Real power is not the martinet ability to hit a player with a draconian suspension; real power is the political capital to gets deals done on things the owners have publicly said they want. Pete Rozelle understood that, and so did Paul Tagliabue. Goodell has no capital. He has no leverage or strength. He spent it all on petty abuses.

Goodell has made just one statement in response since Brady decided to drop his appeal and serve the suspension. It came Monday night, and it was a ludicrous but telling one. ?We moved on from that as a league quite a long time ago,? he said. That was the sound of 32 owners telling him, ?Shut up, Roger.?

sally.jenkins@washpost.com

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole ordeal

http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/tom-brady-is-innocent/

By Joe Posnanski
Tom Brady is innocent
Unequivocally, unambiguously, thoroughly and 100-percent innocent

The other day, I was talking with a friend about Tom Brady. And here?s what he said:

?I think he probably did something, but the whole thing was stupid.?

At the time, I sort of shrugged it off. I mean, for one thing, he?s right: The whole thing was stupid. For another, I?m no Tom Brady fan. What do I care?

But as time has gone on, I realized that I should have said something else:

I think Tom Brady is unequivocally, unambiguously, thoroughly and 100-percent innocent of any and all charges of deflating footballs in a cheating capacity. I don?t think he ever asked anyone to illegally deflate footballs. I don?t think he wanted footballs inflated below NFL standards. I think the whole thing ? every last page of the testimony, every last leak to the media, every text made public, every curious statistic like the one showing the Patriots fumbled less than other teams and every blunder Brady made along the way, like his awkward press conference and the destruction of his phone ? was a bunch of phony-baloney nonsense that was either directly or indirectly inspired by a made-up NFL witch hunt. I think he?s entirely innocent.

And let me say two more things:

1. As mentioned, I don?t particularly like Tom Brady, and I have no affinity whatsoever for the Patriots.

2. I believe Spygate was much, much worse than we in the public ever knew and that the Patriots ? Brady included ? would take any advantage they believed they could get away with. I believe this to be true of most teams and most players at the highest level of sports, but the Patriots in particular.

So why do I believe Tom Brady is unequivocally, unambiguously, thoroughly and 100-percent innocent of any and all charges of deflating footballs?

Because: The NFL spent millions of dollars in a ludicrous star-chamber investigation and, even with that, did not come close to proving it. Not even close. If this was a court of law and the NFL had presented that silly, convoluted, scientifically-challenged case of hearsay and bluster, the jury would have voted ?not guilty? before lunch. And the judge would have wondered why everyone?s time needed to be wasted.

Of course, there was no jury here. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has won the right to, more or less, be persecuting attorney, judge, juror and executioner. The shambles that remain of the NFL Players? Association is not powerful enough to stem his wrecking-ball style of commissioning (or even make football owners give out guaranteed contracts).

And the courts confirmed: It?s Goodell?s world. All the rest of us can do is mock him.

But while Goodell can suspend Brady for four games, while he can fine Brady and the team whatever he wants, while he can take away draft picks and speak piously about how he defended the game from the high crimes of the people breaking the ideal gas law, he should not be allowed to alter reality.

And that?s what he is doing. In sports, every story ? even the most convoluted and pointless and absurd story ? eventually becomes a one-line item. Take David Ortiz?s positive drug test, to stay in Boston. In 2003, David Ortiz and other baseball players agreed to go through a drug-testing survey to determine just how deep the PED problem went. The players and baseball owners agreed that if more than five percent of the players tested positive, drug testing would automatically begin. The survey showed that 100 or so players did test positive, triggering the automatic drug testing.

The results, of course, were supposed to be anonymous.

A year later, though, the dynamic changed. The tests were seized by federal agents in their pursuit of BALCO. Now the results were in open air. In 2009, the New York Times reported that David Ortiz was among the players who tested positive.

Ortiz ? who has never wavered from his statement that he never used steroids ? said he immediately tried to find out why he had tested positive. That seems a pretty basic right in America. But in one of the pathetic ironies of baseball?s ham-handed handling of PED use, he was told that they could not tell him ? because the results were supposed to be secret.

Ortiz says that one of the legal supplements he was using must have caused the positive test, but he doesn?t know which one. And he readily admits that he, like most baseball players, had grown sloppy and selfish in the way they used supplements ? they would use whatever everyone else was using. But since drug testing arrived, Ortiz says that he has been tested dozens and dozens of times, including at home in the Dominican Republic. He has never tested positive since.

So that?s a shortened version of the fuzzy David Ortiz drug story. But do you know what the one-line tag on David Ortiz is? Of course you do:

David Ortiz is a drug cheat.

But, you say, the test was not supposed to determine individual guilt and it was supposed to remain secret.

Too bad. It came out. He is a drug cheat.

But even MLB itself has called into question the results of those tests, pointing out that many were contested by the union ? and that the methods used to drug test were not the best ones ? and that there were numerous uncertainties and inconsistencies ?

Yeah, yeah. Drug cheat.

But Ortiz has vigorously and continuously denied using and has never tested positive again ?

They all deny. He figured out a way to beat the tests. Big deal. Cheater.

This is how it shakes out. Ambiguities fade, storylines harden, and eventually even the people who appreciate and embrace nuance often cave in to a ?where there is smoke there must be fire? position. When David Ortiz is up for the Hall of Fame in five years, there will be people who will not vote for him (interesting to see how many) because they will say he is a proven drug cheat.

So, for me anyway, it?s important to make this Brady viewpoint very clear: He?s innocent. He?s not partially innocent. He is not someone with a ?muddled history.? He is innocent. He was completely and utterly railroaded.

Look, the NFL charged him with breaking a rule NO ONE cared about. The NFL cared so little about air pressure in football that they let teams bring their own footballs, which were barely checked. My guess is if Brady wanted the PSI level of football lowered, he simply could have petitioned the NFL and they would have just lowered it ? they just wanted to make footballs comfortable for quarterbacks to throw.

Then, there is no proof at all that Brady ever wanted footballs deflated BELOW the league minimum. We know only that he liked footballs AT the minimum (especially because, as we know, football naturally deflate in cold weather). Even the famed ?Deflator? suggested his job was to make sure footballs were not OVERINFLATED.

More, the NFL showed no proof whatsoever that he broke the rule or encouraged anyone else to do it ? even in the absurd NFL-commissioned report, Ted Wells could only make the comical charge that ?it is more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware of inappropriate activities.? What a sentence. It is more probable than not that Ted Wells was at least generally aware that this charge was full of bleep.

And, finally, as if you need even more, there is only unconvincing proof and basically discredited evidence that the rule was EVEN BROKEN AT ALL. As you might have heard, a seventh-grader basically disproved it.

So, yes, Roger Goodell can suspend Tom Brady for four games. But his stupid and distracting witch hunt should not be allowed to affect the legacy of Tom Brady. We should remember him as one of greatest players in NFL history, no asterisks. Now, Goodell?s legacy ? that?s a whole other thing.

Well Fitzpatrick finally resigned with the Jets today 1 year 12 million.

Le'Veon Bell likely suspended 4 games for a missed drug test :crying:

And the NFL just won it's appeal against the Adrian Peterson decision.

This pretty much solidifies, and sets precedent, for how the Fed courts view the NFL CBA.

The players might not like it...but...there you go.

I can't sleep I'm so excited that week 1 is right around the corner.

Got my big fantasy drafts coming up ... Christmas in August for me.

Have some hope the Giants could put together a nice season. The defense is going to be 50 percent better just by accident and the offense I believe is just going to go ballistic. Target Eli in fantasy folks!

The division is real weak IMO. Think we take it down this year.

I'd take Brady, Rodgers, or Roethlisberger over him.

Sure ... But you can get Eli much later in the draft.

Yeah, maybe he has a right to, but doing it in this way  is a shitty thing to do. Kaepernick cant stand up for the National Anthem for a country that allowed him to make millions of dollars playing football?? To put this into context, Usain Bolt stopped a live interview at the Rio Olympics just to show respect to the US National Anthem and he's Jamaican.

Colin Kaepernick protests anthem over treatment of minorities

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick says he refused to stand during the national anthem Friday because of his views on the country's treatment of racial minorities.

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media after Friday's game. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."


http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17401815/colin-kaepernick-san-francisco-49ers-sits-national-anthem-prior-preseason-game

Another shocker...Tony Romo is injured.

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/0ap3000000691153/article/tony-romo-has-broken-bone-in-his-back (http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/0ap3000000691153/article/tony-romo-has-broken-bone-in-his-back)

I chuckled when I saw the breaking news on Romo.

As for that loser in San Fran .... Yeah this is America you don't have to stand for anybody ... but come on kid ... This country has treated you pretty damn good ...

On top of the fact his play has been atrocious lately ... Now nobody is going to give him a second chance after they cut him at the end of the year.

Well not a chance to start.

Romo breaking a bone and being out 2 months happened sooner then i expected but i expected it. Time for Dallas to cut their losses with this bum. He just can't stay healthy. All the injuries are starting to take their toll.

I figured Romo would at least make it TO the start of the season......

I am a Jets fan and my wife a Bucs fan so my household is well accustomed to shitty NFL seasons. So Ive got some empathy for the Dallas fans.

RGIII has looked pretty sharp in preseason. It would be interesting if the Browns make the AFC North a 4-way race.

So with no Brady, Gronk, Volmer, Solder, Cooper, Lewis, or Ninkovich they stroll into Arizona (the hardest BY FAR of their Brady-less games) and lead all but about 5 minutes of the game.

This should be a fun season in NE.

Not sure if the Redskins are really bad or my Steelers are very good :smoking:

I think the Steelers have a real nice season. Skins... are middle of the pack...

But as evidenced by the Patriot game... the difference between teams in this league is so minimal. There is no such thing as an unwinnable game.

Pumped up for big blue stealing one on the road in the division. There appears to be a not so rough road to a division win for this team... let's see.


Btw Pats are now 12-5 without Brady...

Makes my Peyton over Tom argument a little bit stronger  : ok:

Not at all... Denver did just fine without him last year... the only year he missed significant time in Indy they were very obviously in full on "Suck for Luck" mode and throwing the season.

Last year Denver had en elite defense around him and he couldn't throw the ball anymore.

In his prime... he went down and the same Colts team won one game... very different situations.

Wait...there are actually arguments that Peyton is NOT greater than Brady?

Peyton was not only the QB, he was basically the freaking O.C.

Brady is great, but he'd have to be Brady and Belichick to compare.  Brady has also had the better teams, by a fair margin, surrounding him for his entire career.  And when he's gone down, they've done fine without him.  In addition, the years that the Pats have had to lean on Brady more are the years they've been 9-10 win teams.

I'm not saying Brady's not an elite quarterback.  He is.  But in terms of Brady vs Peyton....Brady's only advantage is in rings. Peyton, historically, is the better QB.

I can see a Brady/Brees heated discussion, though.

The G-men have squeaked out 2 wins..but their red zone performance has been TERRIBLE. Part of that, IMHO, has been play calling, but execution has not been great, either.

Saints are the best looking 0-2 team in the league. ;)

Gun to my head I am taking Peyton... for a variety of reasons, some you laid out. I can't fault anybody for arguing the other way tho.

A win is a win and you move on !

We can really bury the Skins this week. Need to do it too... at Minnesota and GB coming up will be tough.

I guess.

To me, it's a no brainer. Peyton is so far ahead in every statistical category that matters.  He played 2 more seasons than Brady currently has and has about 13k more yards (Brady is not passing for 460 yds a game, which is what he would need to catch him in 2 seasons). His pass career completion % is better, and that's after a pretty bad season in Denver for that stat (mid 50's). He has more total QBR wins, and wins started (brady might catch him in 2 seasons..he'd need 14...certainly doable). He has more yards per attempt, yards per game, and about 110 more TDs (Brady is not throwing for 110 TDs over the next 2 years).   I mean...Brady has him with about 100 INTs less, but...that's about it (besides rings, which, to me, is a team stat).  Then you add all the OC work Peyton did for his teams on top of that.

If you look at Football Reference's AV (I know, I know), Peyton ranks about 50 points higher (which is actually about 25%, in comparision) higher than Brady.  Most other comparative, calculated-type value stats seem to weigh Peyton higher, too.

Brady is Apollo.  Peyton is Zeus.

They gotta put up numbers vs Washington, and grab the division by it's throat, early.

Their defense was wearing out late game yesterday.  Too much time on the field, too many 4 and outs, or short time of posessions mid game.  And ABYSMAL red zone play...so deflating to a team (and so INFLATING for the opponent...no Brady pun intended).

How 'bout 'dem Steelers? :smoking:

It's actually closer to 3 full seasons worth of starts (42 games) than it is 2. Brady's career winning percentage is .771 (Manning's is .702) Brady over those 42 games should win 30-32 which will far surpass the 14 needed.

Since 2009 Brady is averaging 4511 yards per year (281 per game) which after 42 games would put Brady somewhere in the ball park of 11.5K more yards.

Over the next 3 years he would need to average 42TD's per year which is slightly above his average over the last 6-7 years...

BUT each of these number show you that the 42 game gap between them is not that far off... Also considering that turn over differential is such a huge number when it comes to wins and losses I would put TB's TD to INT ratio up there with some of the more glitzy Dan Marino/Brett Favre stats...

Granted I'm from Boston, but I take Tom 10 out of 10 times.

Hey, its not Peytons fault brady couldnt manage to start more games in the seasons he played. ;)

Win % is generally meaningless, since its so team oriented. I wont argue Brady played on better teams than Peyton did. Thats not because of Peyton (or Brady, entirely). No argument pats have better front office.

Qbr wins and total  career wins are a little more comppellng, but also team oriented.


In 4 seasons he had 2 above and 2 below (one well below) that mark. And even if he hits 11.5 k, he is short about 2k of Peytons total...or about 3%. Peyton has the advantage, still. And you are expecting an aging qb, already, to average more ypg than his career average, just to come up 3% short.


Thats a lot more than slghtly. He has averaged sbout 30tds per season the past 4. He would have to average 12 more, or a 40% increase, just to catch Peyton. Again, aging qb, etc.


In fact, there is quite a noteable spread. And Peyton is ahead in most of the stats that matter. Which you just helped point out.

On ints....i'd peg that stat low on the totem pole, especially given Peytons stats compare, hstorically, with guys like Brees, Elway, Favre, Marino, etc. This stat, for me, ranks pretty low in ranking qbs. Its above win % and well below completion % in weighing, especially if that number isnt out of whack with other historical greats. And Peytons numbers are not ridiculously high. Brady's are ridiculously low (his one historic "solo" number), though he'll pick up another 20 to 30, making the gap with Peyton about 70.  If you want to say Brady is the most conservative qb in history, i will likely agree. He is much more likely to throw the ball away than throw a 50/50 ball. This is evidenced by his similar (but lower) completion % and his similar (but lower) ypa. I'm not sure that makes him historically "great". Hes not more accurate. Hes just not as much of a risk taker (and you could argue...that hurts his td numbers, too..which isnt much of a strength).

So, after all that, Peyton still looks to hold the stats advantage. Which is enough, imho, to say hes better. Now add to that the fact Peyton was his own o.c. for most of his career, and he won a shit ton of games. Even if the stats were equal...and we just saw they are not...that would give Peyton the nod. As it is, its not even close, imho.


As long as you know its because you are from Boston. ;)

I'm from CT. I'm a Giants guy. Neither of these guys is "my guy". I got "the lesser Mannng" on my team. But 100% objectively, looking at numbers and careers, this isnt even a question for me. Peyton is the better QB.

Looking at numbers, I'll give you Manning will be up in most (read nearly all) but they will be in the same relative ball park. HOWEVER numbers do not make a career, Brady has won 12-14 games with receiving corps that wouldn't start on almost any other team. Look at the 2006 Pats, Brady won 12 games and went to the brink in the AFC championship with Jabar Gaffney, Reche Caldwell, and Doug Gabriel... I don't think Peyton ever played with a receiving corps that shitty. He always had Marvin Harrison and or Reggie Wayne in Indy... Until Gronk, Brady had 1 good year with Randy Moss, other than that he made every receiver he played with (barring Welker) better, and when they left they failed (look at Deion Branch and David Givens).

I get it is a team sport and teams win games, but the the QB is probably the most important position in any of the 4 major American sports and 1 QB leads in career winning percentage, will by early next season own the regular season wins record, already hold the post season wins record, and could potentially (to use an NFL phrase, more probable than not) win a 5th ring in the next year or two.

I'll take that all day over any another QB of his generation...

This is Joe Montana vs. Dan Marino all over again, except the 2000's/2010's version is closer in numbers (Montana is no where near Dan on the Stat sheet).

Career TD's: Manning #1 Brady #4 (Montana #14 Marino #5)
Career Yards: Manning #1 Brady #5 (Montana #17 Marino #4)
Career Yards/Game: Manning t#3 Brady #7 (Montana #35 Marino #9)
Career Passer Rating: Manning #5 Brady #6 (Montana #11 Marino #21)
Career Pass  Interception %: Manning #t29 Brady #2 (Montana #t20 Marino #t41)

Historically people who wanted to win took Joe, and people who wanted to win the NFL QB Challenge took Dan... I view TB and PM the same.

Right, and Brady is sitting on the sidelines, as a backup, while Manning is on the field. ;)


Um...here's where we part company.  Numbers are the only real reflection of a career.


2006 is a GREAT example of my point (and...interesting you'd spotlight the year that Peyton beat them). Mangini's defense went a LONG way to winning many, many of those games (2nd best defense in the league). In addition, Brown was Brady's 3rd favorite target (and actually became the Pats all time receptions leader, at that point, that season)...a precursor to the Gronk days, since even though Gronk is a TE and Brown was a WR...Bown was used similarly in '06.  Again, a foreshadowing of Brady being conservative. Caldwell and Watson both had decent season, yes, but not stellar. And Brady also had a stellar o line that year, and a serious ground game...20 Rushing TDs and almost 2k yards rushing (which takes pressure off those receivers).

Brady had a decent year in 2006. Not stellar. 62% completion, 3500 yards, 24 TDs, 220 YpG, 6.6 YpA.  Those are GOOD numbers.

Edit: By the By...In 2006, Peyton had a 65% completion, about 4400 yards, 31 TDs, 275 Ypg, and 7.9 YpA. Those are unreal numbers...on his way to a SuperBowl MVP. ;)
 
You want wins to mean more because Brady is "your guy".  But you're picking a team stat and giving him all the credit. I just demonstrated, using your own example, how Brady was only one part of 2006's success. 

Sorry, I can't buy in.

Edit: And to add...in 2008, with Brady hurt, the team went 10-6. The next year, in 2009, they went...10-6 with Brady starting all 16 games...and Brady having a career representative (if not slightly above average) year.  This, again, shows you that the Pats wins are not all on Brady's shoulders.

The Colts, in 2010, won 10 games. In 2011, with no Peyton, they won 2. Now, I know...the argument (and it's valid here) is they were gunning for Luck, and thus not really trying to win.  Fair enough.  But it makes the same point, actually. Wins are not always reflective of QB ability, alone. 
In 2012, again, granted, with a different team....Peyton comes back and puts up 13 wins, on a team that the previous year (with almost the same team, except the QB) won 8 games.

Not the end all/be all..but even if you adopt your more wins focused POV...gotta make you go"Hmmmm".


Yup, and in just about every category that measures THEIR on the field performance, Peyton wins the comparison. AND was his own offensive coordinator.


And was largely on better, more talented teams (on both sides of the ball) than the "other guy".  And the "other guy" leads in just about every metric that measures INDIVIDUAL performance, anyway.

By your logic, Andy Pettite is a better pitcher than Felix Hernandez...and a sure fire 1st ballot HOFer.  His team won (even if he didn't get the wins) about 70% of the time he started a game, he has a crap ton of post season wins, a ton of strikeouts, and he's got 5 rings.

King Felix leads him in every individual category, though. 


Because, as you said, you're from Boston. ;)


And I'd offer the people that would take Montanna were 49ers fans, largely. Or are blinded by the bling.  Because Marino was the superior QB, with the inferior team and front office.  Montanna had superior talent surrounding him, on his teams, most of his career with the 49ers (and a good stretch with Jerry Rice, which would help anyone's numbers). He also had a pretty good defense on the other side of the ball. Those 9er superbowl runs (and I WATCHED them) were not entirely the product of Montanas talent.  In fact, Montana really fell off the truck after being smacked in the mouth by the Giants....when his O'line started to fail...which was the beginning of his end.  They were both elite QB's. Marino was better.


People who didn't understand the advantages Joe's teams had over Dan's took Joe. Those 4 SB rings tend to blind people. They instantly want to put the wins at the feet of the QB. I get it, but it's not accurate or fair to do it.  Dan, by the numbers, was the better QB.  He wasn't the "winningest" QB.  Bill Walsh said it best "Joe Montana was the product of a system. Dan Marino WAS the system".  And, by the by, I don't think Walsh was necessarily saying Dan was better in that statement..but he was making the same point I am: Joe was put in place, in an existing system, because he fit it, and his tools were the perfect fit to succeed.  Dan was taken because he was the best player and they just stuck him in the middle and told him to run with it.  One had an exceptional front office driving to create a dynastic team.  The other had an old school FO (not surprising with Shula at the helm) still operating like the '70's NFL.

I will say this: In the 2 minute drill, I would take Montana over anyone else who has ever played. Followed by Favre. And then Peyton.  But that's a subjective assessment, and not the sum total of QB measurement, either.  I do know a LOT of folks put a LOT of weight on this assessment, though....which I will allow might also be why some folks give Montana the nod.

I do agree, though, there is a LOT of similarity between the two situations....

Let me phrase it this way:

If you took Peyton (Marino) and put them on the Patriots(49ers)....I DO think those teams are MORE successful than they were with Brady (Montana), assuming the same sorts of system builds around them are done.

Likewise, I think if you put Brady (Montana) on the Colts (Dolphins), I don't think they are NEARLY as successful as Peyton (Marino) were on those teams, assuming the FO runs them similarly to the way they did. And I don't think Brady (Montana) could hack being their own play caller (Peyton got 2 sideline calls, plus situational audible authority (OMAHA)...Marino had similar (slightly broader) options in the Shula system).  Both the Pats and (especially) the 49ers offense is/was pretty heavily scripted.

You want to hold those guys accountable for things they had no control over, and give them no credit for the things they did....and likewise you want to give credit to Brady/Montana for their teams front office and coaching successes, which they had no control over.

Sorry to interrupt, love the QB discussions, but to just chime in on this 1 point, I'd go with Marino on that metric.  Montana has the more high-profile moments in that respect, but in terms of quantity, Marino's got him by a mile.  Marino has 51 game winning drives, much more than Montana's 33.  (Peyton is #1 with 56.)

Full list: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm

I'd agree that Marino has him by sheer volume (partially, if I recall, because of the fact Marino played in more close games).  I'd take Joe (and Favre) mostly based on their...ahem...balls.  Not just how many times they did it, but WHEN and HOW they did it.  As I said, it's a subjective choice for me...which is why I weight it so low when assessing QBs, overall.  I think, as you point out, Joe gets a LOT of credit from folks because his were in such high profile circumstances....while many (most?) of Marino's were less "leveraged".  Montana was clutch when the pressure was high, in the biggest moments, on the biggest stages. I also think there's something of the "Nameth" factor here, too...the charisma and bravado wins him more points (even from me) than it should. ;)

As an aside, I wish we had a denominator on this..as in: Joe converted 33 of xxx chances at game winning drives (so..how many late and close opportunities did he have vs Marino).  I just can't find one.

Yeah, I looked for that too.  Montana's Niners were an all-time great team, weren't many games they weren't comfortably ahead in the 4th quarter.  But Marino was my favorite player of that era, so I always made it a point to watch any Dolphin games that were televised.  Watching him take control at the end of a game was a thing of beauty, it suddenly seemed like he was playing against kids.  And it was pretty funny that the Jets were a regular victim of his. 

I watched a lot of Marino, too.  More of Montana (simply because they played my Giants more), I think.  To my eyes, Marino was the better all around player, even then.  He just didn't have the flashy smile, flashy team, and gaudy post season record.  Again, the "Nameth" factor.  It's somewhat like Jeter (and yes, I'm a Yanks fan..so get ready to be shocked).  The guys stats are very good, if somewhat compiled.  He produced, consistently, over a long career. He won a crap ton of rings.  But he is going to ride into the HOF, as a near unanimous pick, on the first ballot, as much on his "aw shucks", face of the Yankees (when that meant something), nice guy persona as on his stats (which, to be FAIR, get him in..but not in the manner he will likely GET in).  Now, Montana had the gaudy stats, too....at least to put him in the conversation...but I think a LOT of the "greatest of all time" stuff is tiebroken (at best) by similar factors that Jeters first ballot HOF induction ride on. I know, sacrelidge coming from a Yanks fan.

Of course, this conversation harkens me back to the halcyon days when football was football...and you could actually HIT the QB.  I maintain that had Marino or Montana played with todays rules, they would likely have both played 5+ more seasons.  By today's rules, that Giants hit that pretty much knocked the Montana out of Montana would be illegal, today.

Don't get me wrong: I still like watching the game, today. But its a VERY different game than it was when I was watching in the 80's and 90's (and even early 2000's).  To some extent, I understand why.  But it doesn't mean I don't miss the LT/Carl Banks style pass rush defense.

You obviously don't watch the Patriots much... Brady is most successful when running a hurry up no huddle calling his own plays and making multiple checks at the line. (He just doesn't do it in such a dramatic way with all the foot stomps, clapping, and arm waving).

I will just never get past Manning's playoff record, his teams were not bad and they lost many bad games in the playoffs to bubble teams. He has 9 one and done's and most of those seasons he and his team had 12 or more regular season wins. In several of those games he had multiple interceptions.

If I need a week 4 win in a dome while trying to set a regular season record... give me Peyton. If I need a win in January/February... I take Brady.

I refuse to accept the better team argument. Peyton played on teams with 12 or more wins 11 times. He has another 3 seasons where his team won at least 10 games. He had 1 Hall of Fame Receiver (Harrison) and another destined for the Hall in Reggie Wayne (14,345 yards and 1070 receptions) plus Edgerin James at RB in Indy, then Demaryius Thomas, Emmanuel Sanders, Julius Thomas, and Wes Welker... Marino gets to say he played on teams that were hot garbage for the later 2/3's of his career, but Peyton doesn't get that crutch. For some reason he doesn't come up big in the big game... even last year they won in spite of him. He had 141 yards, 1 Int and a 56.6 QB Rating in the Super Bowl.

In the 2 Giants Super Bowls Brady gave the Patriots a lead with a go ahead Touchdown with ~3 minutes left in each game and his defense couldn't hold on. The 2006 AFC Championship is about the only time I can remember Peyton driving late in a playoff game to win.

With all that said, he (Peyton) is the best pure passer I have seen in my lifetime. However I want wins, specifically post season wins.

In Boston in the late 90's early 2000's we had arguably the most dominant pitcher over a 5 year stretch in Pedro Martinez that I have ever seen, but he could never get it done in the post season (except for a Game 5 ALDS bullpen appearance against the Indians in 1999). I loved all of his 17+ strikeout games, pitching triple crowns, Cy Young's (should have been an MVP too if not for a NY sports writer), but I watched Pettitte pitch in October with a ton of jealous envy. It took Schilling to get them over the hump, but he wasn't half the pure pitcher that Pedro was... but they never would have won without him.

Every game they're not playing at the same time as the G-men.

And I understand their offense VERY well.

First 15 plays from scrimmage are scripted (that's per Bill).  During the Hurry up, Brady's calling (since circa 2006) from a list of 5 pre-scripted, sequenced, plays sent in at the start of the hurry up, and then based on the defense setup. He's not actually making a decision...it's all defined in the playbook. If the defense is this, they run this exact play.  He calls the occasional audible, but it's also prescripted and defined within the offense set up by the coaches...and it's exceedingly rare if you watch him in the hurry up.

He's not calling his own plays.  Not in the same way Peyton did (3 options, 2 audibles, and an out, every play of every game...and they all changed each play). It wasn't predefined, or scripted. He called them in the huddle, and (unless he saw fit) it wasn't defined which play to run against specific defensive formations.  He was literally the only guy in the league who did it, anymore.  Prior to him, it was Jim Kelly (and he 100% called his own stuff), I think. Farve did it occasionally, depending on situation (I think he called it Winter Blue or something like that, when he's switch the OC and team over).

Brady does not do the same thing. That earpiece, though... ;)


Playoffs are a small sample comparison. In every sport, but ESPECIALLY in football.  And, again, the QB is not entirely to blame (or get credit for) those outcomes.

You can't get past it because we're comparing to "your guy", who's had pretty good success in the playoffs, based on the talent on his roster, and the fact he has what I consider to be the greatest coach of the modern era....no matter how shady and close to the line he walks....and the fact Brady is REALLY, REALLY good. One of the immortals. Just...not Peyton.  Tom might be the most decorated QB, he might eventually be the winningest QB with the most rings.  That doesn't make him the BEST QB, anymore than having "the most rings" makes Bill Russel the greatest NBA player of all time (nope, still Jordan).


Because you're a Pats guy.  Which is fine.  But put Peyton on the Pats, with Bill, in January or February (or against the Giants in the Superbowl) and I'll take Peyton.  Every day and twice on Sunday. Because the stats tell me I should, and by eyes don't disagree, rather than a small sample size, who's outcome can be skewed by other influences (which...well, keep reading).

Now, if the choice is Brady and the Pats vs Peyton and the Colts (as long as it's not 2006), I'd take Brady and the Pats.  But it's pretty close and if I'm PLAYING Peyton and the Colts (or the Giants in the Superbowl...sorry, I couldn't resist)...I am no way confident in the outcome. I'd give it a 60-40 split, because the Colts have the better QB, and the Pats have more talent, better fits in their system, and better coaching.  That buys them their advantage.


You can 'refuse' to accept it, but the stats say it's true. 

Peytons teams weren't hot garbage.  But they weren't the Pats either.  Again, coaching, FO, and other personell, has a lot to do with those outcomes.  Pats are masters of taking guys who look oddball, and fitting them into a perfect system.  Brady, himself, is a good example of it!  You're basically saying coaching and FO doesn't matter, at all....and neither do the other 45 players who dress every game. Pats have the best in the league, in both coaching and FO (largely because Bill calls most of the shots and he's a genius). You're pissing on their contributions.

AND you're judging a QB based entirely on wins, when there are 40 other guys out there who have effect on that outcome.  And a large one.


Read that first line.  Read it again.  Read it one more time.

Thanks for proving my point, entirely.  I sort of put that up there figuring you'd bite.  We now agree: the QB had very little effect on the outcome of those two Giants superbowl games.  But yet..they count as losses, right? So it's fair to penalize Brady for those losses.  That's been your argument since we started.  It's 100% on the QB...every outcome, win or lose.

But...you just reversed course, seemingly, when it was YOUR guy who was getting penalized for those outcomes. 

Case. In. Point. :)


But that's not the metric for "best" at a position.  That's the metric for "winningest".  And the QB isn't the ONLY guy to effect those outcomes.


So, you're saying you think Pettite was the better pitcher over Pedro?

Yup, that pretty much says it all.

Because on no planet is that true.

Ditto Shilling vs Pedro.

The fact i just had to defend pedro martinez makes me think the world is about to end.

Dogs and cats, living together...mass hysteria.

I can't believe I missed out on a good Brady vs. Manning debate. Let me just interject on two points. Peyton played a vast majority of his career in a climate controlled dome on a fast track with an offense built to score a ton of points to make up for their often lackluster defense. Brady plays most of his games outdoors, quite a bit in cold and inclement weather. I find it hard to have a fair comparison due to those factors. As Belichick once famously said, "stats are for losers".

And let's not go nuts about the job Matt Cassel did the year he filled in for Brady. He took over virtually the same team that went 16-0 the year before and won 5 less games against a relatively soft schedule. They went 4-0 that year against the AFC West, who didn't have a single team finish above .500. They went 3-1 against the NFC West, whose best team was 9-7 that year. They also beat a 2 win Chiefs that year, the 7-9 Bills twice, the 9-7 Jets, and the 11-5 Dolphins. So they had 3 wins over teams with more than 9 wins. Their other 8 wins were against teams .500 or below. They were just 5-3 at home that year. Brady doesn't typically lose home games, and I'd venture to guess they probably would've won at least 2 or 3 more games. So, it was still an admirable job by Cassel, but let's not act like they didn't skip a beat. They did.

Now the following season, they were just not a great football team. 2 years removed from 16-0, not nearly the same team. The defense was on the decline ever since 2004, but that year was just about rock bottom for them. Gone were Bruschi, Harrison, Vrabel, and Seymour. Their DB's were poor. They were just not that good. So the 10-6 record was not a huge surprise.

So it's not so easy to say Manning is better than Brady because he had better stats. Or Brady is a system QB because Cassel won 11 games (though technically Brady gets credit for the first win that year) and a year later Brady only won 10. There's a lot more to it than those statements on the surface.

With that being said, I'm a little less scared about life after Brady after seeing these first 3 games. Especially witnessing what Jimmy G was in the process of doing against the Dolphins. Maybe it won't be so bad after all.

I am firmly in the camp that Brady will go down in history as the best quarterback of all time, period.
Yep, better than Montana...very difficult to compare across eras, but I'm willing to do just that.
...and no, I'm not a Pats fan.   :peace:

Roethlisberger - 21/26, 300 YDS, 5 TDS :smoking:

Jets suck.... :rant:

So much for a good year.

The Steelers are the best team in the NFL (yes, even better than you, New England)

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/the-steelers-are-the-best-team-in-the-nfl-yes-even-better-than-you-new-england-101116 (http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/the-steelers-are-the-best-team-in-the-nfl-yes-even-better-than-you-new-england-101116)

I disagree.  Steelers are #2.
New England's the best, period.
As a Vikes fan, sure I'm happy being the only undefeated team in the NFL...but...I am realistic.
Here's my power poll right now:
1- Patsies  3-1 without Brady, now Brady's back.  Let the anger tighten those spirals Tom!
2- Steelers  improve the D, and they could be #1.
3- Seahawks, once Russell's back to full strength, watch out.
4- Broncos, fluke loss to SD.  Their D will make them a tough out in the playoffs.
5- Vikes  if only Adrian hadn't gotten hurt...Bradford was an obvious upgrade over Teddy, but that's only if Sam stays healthy. 

Jets still suck  :rant:

Cowboys come back for 29-23 OT Win over Eagles  :beer:

They have to be the early favorite to win the NFC.

Behind their rookies, Ezekiel Elliott and Dak Prescott, the Cowboys come back to down the Steelers, 35-30.  :beer:

The Cowboys had plenty to be thankful for on Thursday, recording their 10th straight win in defeating the Redskins, 31-26 in the annual Thanksgiving Day classic.  :peace:

Steelers and Ravens on Christmas Day should be a slobberknocker :smoking:

My mighty Raiders are going to win it all this year!

They look like a nice little team. The issue is their coach is a mental midget and their defense (except for Mack) is a disaster. I see them wilting in January.

I think based on schedules it is unlikely they win out, which probably leaves New England as the #1 seed with home field throughout. I don't see Oakland going into Foxboro in January and winning.

Brady led offenses are like 8-1 or 9-1 against Jack Del Rio coached defenses. His only win was with the 2013 Broncos which went to the Super Bowl that year with an amazing team. I feel like I am missing a game after the 2013 (2014) AFC Championship, but after that game Brady had a 121 rating with 18 TD's and 0 Int's against those defenses, and statistically this Oakland Defense is weaker than a lot of the Del Rio defenses Brady has faced.

This reads rather smug in light of your Cheatriots looking extremely pedestrian against Landry freaking Jones and a depleted Steelers' D.. :-*

I doesn't read smug... it is smug and for good reason. They will be the #1 seed, it's what they do. I would worry about Pittsburgh in Foxboro, but not Oakland. Oakland does not have the Defense to win a game in Foxboro in January and their coach is terrible.

As far as the game in October... The Pats gave up a single TD, Brady threw for 2 and Blount ran for 1. It was a double digit win, I'm sure the rest of the league hopes to look that pedestrian (like the first 3 teams for example that played Garoppolo and Brissett).

I see your team is deflating balls now. Or is it just the weather? I forget what narrative we're supposed to run with these days.

They should probably hire you to represent them (if you can find time away from Brady's anal cavity).

Nah, I'm all set. It's science anyway. Belichick proved that long ago. No need for representation. You're welcome!

The Raiders will show them all!  Who is number 1

Raiders are a promising young team, but I don't think their defense is good enough to be a top contender. Mack is sick though.

Hope the Giants can recover from the ultra harsh penalty for their latest transgression. Has Goodell gone soft?

By making the plane ride East to lose in the #1 seeds stadium?

Nothing like almost making it to your destination just to have your Carr break down...

Steelers show why they're Patriots' biggest threat in AFC
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/columnist/bell/2016/12/25/pittsburgh-steelers-ben-roethlisberger-leveon-bell-antonio-brown/95845722/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/columnist/bell/2016/12/25/pittsburgh-steelers-ben-roethlisberger-leveon-bell-antonio-brown/95845722/)

Texans and Raiders should be a horrific game to watch.

Steve Smith, of the Ravens, is retiring.  Here's his "resignation" letter. It's awesome!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1fKg1pWQAAC3rq.jpg

Love it!   :hihi:

We don't agree too often, but that one should be ugly. Osweiler vs Cook. And the winner travels to Foxboro next week as long as your Steelers TCOB.

Giants really crapped the bed yesterday.  Predictable NY media jumping all over the Miami vacation day. 

Sad thing is, even with all their fuckups throughout the game, they were right back in it when they scored to make it 14-13 in the 3rd quarter.  Then, all of a sudden, the defense went to shit. 

Cook is the worst QB I have ever seen.  He stunk

GreenBay is my new playoff team.  They will be in tough against Dallas though, in Dallas

Aside from Ben now in a boot and Joey Porter getting into a bar fight, I'd say they did 8)

I'm not gonna blame the boat trip, but they fucked up a yacht. ;)

Giants played the perfect 1st quarter on defense....and played the first half of the 2nd quarter pretty damn well, too. They had pressure on Rogers and great down field zone coverage. Then...all of a sudden...they just fucked themselves and couldn't get out of their own way.

Too many missed hits on Rogers...just total whiffs...esp late in the 2nd quarter.  They make those hits, when Rogers ends up making long throws from scrimmage (one for a TD) and, honestly, I think the Giants win the game because they start to get into Rogers head. You could see it starting with the 4 sacks early....and then, that 1st TD...Rogers got his feet under him and his confidence and swagger back.   Bad end zone defense at the end of the 1st half had me pulling my hair out of my head. What should have been at LEAST a 50/50 ball was so misplayed (how do you ALL play back to the ball when the GB receiver you're covering is LITERALLY on the back line of the end zone and you have him surrounded???), it was a 75/25 ball in GBs favor. As soon as the Packers went up 14-6, you pretty much knew the game was over. Rogers had done his Superman transformation, the glasses were off, and you knew Clark Kent wasn't coming back.

Too many dropped passes early and late by the Giants receivers (and NOT because of the Packer defense), which ended up putting the Defense on the field too long, and demoralizing pretty much everyone.  Two of those drops (well, 3, really...but on 2 drives, so they only would have resulted in 14 pts, either way) were in the end zone, early, which were KILLERS.  Too many wasted offensive opportunities where people would be open but not able to convert.

Too many BAD coaching decisions (who runs their smallest back out there on 3rd and 1 when your larger back is something like a bajillion for a bajillion and one in 3rd and 1s this season?), on both sides of the ball, came back to haunt them.  Failure to adjust to the Packer adjustments in the 2nd and 4th Q especially just KILLED them.

I thought Eli was the one Giant bright spot.  He played well....maybe better than he has all year.  But his backs and receivers repeatedly let him down. O-line also did well, all game...which should have netted them some impressive results, but the backs and receivers just no showed them.

One last thing: If OBJ wants to "be the man", he's gonna have to actually play like "the man" when it matters.  He had an ABYSMAL game yesterday.  I'm OK with arrogant and cocky. But at some point, you gotta back it up. He's young. He should have lots of other opportunities. But yesterday, he laid an egg on the field, and then laid another one off the field, on his way out the door.  He literally has no one to blame for his level of frustration but himself.

The Packers defense is going to have to show up for this one.  They're not going to be able to rely on Dallas to drop passes like the Giants did.

Otherwise, it's gonna be a shoot out game and anyone's guess as to who wins.  I'd normally go with Rogers, but Dallas has proven they can put up scores all season long.  It'll be interesting.

I think GB will win....and, in fact, they're now my pick to win the NFC.  But, in reality, its prolly a pick 'em game. Though the Boys will prolly get 3 from Vegas for being a home, and 1 for GB potentially losing Jordy Nelson.

I will be in Vegas for superbowl, so I wanted to hold off betting till then.

When I looked at odds before last weekend, GB was 18-1 and would of been my pick to win it all.  Pats are the fav, but there is no money in them.  My pretend GB bet would of been 1000.   Now I get to put that money on 50 different silly prop bets for the game.  1000 on heads on the anthem to go under 3 mins haha

Should they jump all over the vandalism left behind at Lambeau Field or the plane the Giants trashed returning home, causing passengers to wait on the runway for a good 2+ hours?

Yes.

And the team (and the league) should address both, as well. Fines, at least, plus damages.

Was that plane story fake news though? I've heard conflicting reports.

Hopefully we'll get some more competitive games this weekend, except for the Pats. If that game is close, something has gone terribly wrong.

Still conflicting reports.

Giants deny it (I mean...as you would sort of expect).

Airline says the plane had "mechanical issues on board" that necessitated the resulting delay (and, also, won't confirm the Giants presence on the plane, at all).

Multiple people who actually TOOK the delayed flight (bound for London) say it smelled strongly of booze, vomit, and caustic cleaning products...and say there was cosmetic damage throughout the cabin.

IDK whats what...but I think it's enough that the league should take a look, at least.

Steelers vs. Patriots it is :smoking:

Had to happen.  I think the Pats will be heavy favorites, but still, Pittsburgh is the last team they wanted to have to go through. 

No matter what, we're due at least one more solid temper tantrum from Brady like we saw last week, correct? ;)

If the Pittsburgh D plays the way it's capable (quick to the ball, good zone coverage down field)...I'd say at least one.

Brady is a good zone buster, and he has the personell to shred the Steelers secondary. BUT..his O line isn't the best. And those Pittsburgh pass rushers know how to find holes. 

Pittsburgh has to find ways to get the ball in the end zone....that's their biggest issue.

Pittsburgh won't win a shoot out.  But if they can keep Brady out of the end zone, and knock him on his ass a few times....they've got the best shot in the league to beat the Pats.

The issue is the front 7 was Houston's strength, they had the #1 overall defense in the NFL (without Watt). Pitt would have to play out of their minds to disrupt Brady even in a similar fashion to what he saw last weekend. At Gillette vs. #1 defenses Brady is 7-0 with 14 TD's and 5 int's (after last weekend). As far as the O-Line... Brady was only sacked 15 times all year (obviously he missed 4 games, but at that rate even in 16 games he would be on the low end in the NFL).

As they say 'Any given Sunday'... I just don't see them stopping New England's Offense. Then on the other side of the ball New England has the #1 scoring defense in the league and the #8 overall. Obviously those stats are based on competition and strength of schedule, but I like the matchups for New England in this one.*

*Opinion of a Boston Based Homer  :peace:

Oh, I think the Pats are going to win.

But I think Pitsburgh has the best shot in the AFC to beat them, in Foxboro.  I thought that right from the start of the playoffs.

Houston's d kept it a 17-13 game in the first half, don't forget.  But they looked gassed by late in the 3rd Q. 

15 times in 11 games is about 1.4 times per game, putting them toward the top of the league....but the Steelers force 2.4 sacks per game, putting THEIR defense in the top 10 in the league (Houston was 23rd....) in sacks per game.  It's an interesting match up.

Again, if the Pats score 30....that's not a game the Steelers can win.  If the Pats score 17?  I give the Steelers the edge in that kind of game.

By the By...not going to be all that cold in Foxboro this weekend....mid to upper 40's, looks like.

Pretty solid preview from the ESPN crew 8)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3A6RxTjskI&app=desktop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3A6RxTjskI&app=desktop)

ESPN Lies!

I expect a good game and think it'll be close. Neither team was at their best last week and both are going to have to play better to win this week. And I think the winner of this game will most likely be favored in the Super Bowl.

The Patriots have historically played well against the Steelers. But, there's no Gronk this time, the Steelers defense is much better, and the Steelers are healthy on offense. So I think the gap has closed a bit. We will see by how much. The Pats are still the favorite, they're at home, and Big Ben hasn't been stellar on the road this year. It should be entertaining. I'll be there and am staying in the area overnight since it's the late game. I sure hope I'm in a celebratory mood post game and not in a hitchhike my way home in anger mood. I have to admit, I'm a little :nervous:. Though last year I was quite confident heading into the AFCCG against Denver and that certainly didn't work out well. I'll be screaming my head off and Monday probably won't be a very productive day of work. I just hope it's a happy one.

Well....maybe that gap hasn't narrowed all that much. ;)

Steelers D just got out game planned (and outplayed).  They refused to budge from cover zone most of the game...and the Pats kept scheming the defenders off the ball.  They'd line up 2 receivers, run one of them right at the inside defender (almost to the point of illegal blocking...but not quite), and draw the inside defender off the outside receiver, who crossed their zone wide open. Outside defender stuck in their zone.  No help, no adjustments. All. Night. Long.

And the Steelers were never able to put any appreciable pressure (OK, ONCE...and Brady hit the deck) on Brady.

Again, by the 2nd half, the Steelers D looked gassed, too.

On D, the Pats seemed to know where the ball was going every single play.  Steelers ran their Plan A offense all night, and didn't really mix up anything. You CAN NOT DO THAT vs the Pats. ESPECIALLY once you know Bell is on the shelf.  The Pats are the best prepared (I'd say in some cases overprepped) team in the league.  You can not play 100% to your tendencies and expect to win when you are undermanned. Even fully staffed up.....you gotta keep the Pats on their heels and make them second guess your play calling and options. I know you can't ABANDON what got you there, but you have to at least switch it up a bit and make them wonder.  Once you let them get comfortable, you're dead.  And the Pats were comfortable all night long.

I'm picking the Pats to win the SB.  I think both offenses are roughly equivalent, but I think the Pats D is better than Atlantas.  I'm also not sure Ryan, or the Falcons coaching staff, can go out there and out think the Brady and Coach B.  Because the Pats are going to know your tendencies inside and out.  I feel like the only way Atlanta has a shot is if this the Pats D plays awful, and it's a 50 to 44 game......

Looking forward to a real good game. In all of the pat super bowls they have never won by more than 4... and that was the Seattle scratch ur head moment...and the losses with the Giants were of course tight too.

So I like the pats to win too ... but definitely in a tight one.

I also worry about the gap between the coaching staffs.

I really think this like all of the other Super Bowls in the Brady/BB era is going to be a one score game...

BUT considering this is #1 Offense vs. #1 Defense on one side, and #3 Offense vs. #27 Defense on the other, this has the chance of being a 3 score victory for the Pats. I don't see Atlanta slowing Brady down at all so that will be a 35+ point showing minimum. If the Pats can slow Atlanta at the start, get up early, force Atlanta to play from behind and make mistakes it could be the least stressful Super Bowl I've ever watched... I think that is highly unlikely, BUT it is far more likely than a blow out in the other direction.

Certain not betting against the Patriots .. and could see them pull away ...

I wouldn't underestimate the Falcon defense tho.... they have been playing much better than that 27th ranking.

That kid Beasley can wreck a game.

He had 15.5 sacks and 39 total tackles (including sacks)... if he isn;t getting a sack he isn;t doing anything else on the field. The Pats O-Line this year had success against many of the sack leaders in the league this year. Beasly is like Chandler Jones, he gets sacks in bunches then disapears for games at a time. He had 3 vs LA, 3.5 vs Denver, but had games where he isn't even on the stat sheet.

Much like they will game plan for the Atlanta Running Backs (more important to their success than Julio Jones, more on that in a minute) they will focus on their only top tier defender. The Coach had huge success with this system in Seattle but he doesn't have the Legion of Boom. They play a zone that Brady can shred.

The key to this game is New England stopping the run. In Atlanta's 5 losses there running game was stopped cold. New England has the #3 rushing defense in the league.

If New England gets up early and changes the way Atlanta likes to play (just listen to the Freeman quote about how their "gameplan is set, its the same every week") New England runs away with this game.

My money is on the Pats , like everyone else...... But Ill be rooting for Atlanta. (I'm a Jets fan, so it is hard to cheer for the Pats.)

I dont want Brady to run out of fingers for his super bowl rings. I am curious when the guy will start to show his age.

The Falcons D has played better of late, from ahead. That can be said for most teams. I'm not sure they could lean on their D to carry them to victory if their offense has an off day. I'd be surprised if the Patriots had trouble putting points on the board.

Sure ... I agree about the D carrying them ... they need to score ... we know Brady will...but they have just played great football all around lately ... and like we discussed, these Pat games tend to be close.

You and Coma also never think they are going to lose ...  :hihi:

To be fair....they're playing the odds pretty well here.  They lose about 4 times a year, on average over the past 10 years and play, on average, about 18 games per year.  If you always predict they win, you're right about 80% of the time.

Can you blame 'em?

I disagree, guys who can bring pressure like Beasley are always affecting a game even when they aren't getting sacks.  Non-sack hits affect the QB over the course of a game, constant pressure reduces time to throw and taking up 2-3 blockers makes it easier on the rest of the defense.  He's not as effective against the run, but I think the Falcons would prefer the Pats to run instead of pass.  

Anyway, I'll go against the odds and pick the Falcons to pull off the upset.  If the defense can limit Pats scoring to somewhere in the 20s, like they did with a red-hot Aaron Rodgers and the Pack, I think they'll win.  

Absolutely not ... I think they will win too .. but a close one.

Difference being the offensive tools. Green Bay had no running game and their offense was banged up. Brady is coming in with a full quiver... While yes Gronk is out they made a great off season pick up with Martellus Bennett. The difference too between Brady and Rogers is that Rogers leans on his physical talents and (like Favre) slings the ball down field looking for big plays. Brady is willing to sit back and methodically shred a zone defense (which is what Atlanta plays almost exclusively). I don't see Atlanta doing any better than Pitt or Houston (who are better defenses) at keeping them under 34-38 points.

Credit to Atlanta's D, but GB left 10 points on the field early with the missed FG and fumble inside the 10. That would've put them over 30 and the game would've been more competitive.

Yeah, I mean we have been spoiled as Patriots fans. We may never see an extended run like this ever again for any team. I could probably count on one hand how many times I thought the Pats were going to lose over the last decade or so. I expect them to win just about every game. Obviously that's not realistic, but they're favored for most of them.

I was unnecessarily nervous heading into the AFCCG 2 weeks ago. It worries me that I'm not that nervous for this game. I was confident going into Denver last year and that didn't work out well. I'm not saying Atlanta's not a good team or they can't win, I just think New England is the better team by a good margin. We will find out for sure on Sunday though. I'm surprised the spread has stayed steady while 2/3 of the money in Vegas is going towards the Pats. Seems like they are banking on a 3 point game or Falcons win.

It is very rare that a line moves off of three... they always get crushed when they do.

Also ... I read the majority of the real big bets have come in on Atlanta... keeping it where it is.

Not sure what the money line is, but I'd think if you're going to bet Atlanta that'd be the way to go instead of taking a measly 3 points. Of course, watch them lose by 2 and blow that theory.

T minus 6 hours and counting.

5

25 point comeback, 2TD's, 2 2PT conversions, OT TD Drive. 5th career SB game winning drive.

All I can say is thank god i am not a falcons fan ...

Nice moment for Brady with his mother ... she is clearly very sick ... best wishes to her.

The fans should boycott that team for a year.  Any team that decides to turn into a JV team midway through the 3rd quarter of a Super Bowl deserves more than just losing.  What a bunch of assholes.

And as horrible as they were, they still had the game locked up --- 22-yd line, 4 minutes left, 8pt lead... just run the damn ball 3 times, run out some clock, kick the FG and then game over.  Probably karma that that did not happen, because all things considered, they deserved to lose. 

Yup ... matty ice ... just go down and take the sack !!! 

His fumble in their zone was ....

Sickening .... but like I said all last week that coaching staff was going to cost them .... run the ball go up 11 ... games over.

Take nothing away from the comeback ... just incredible ... but holy shit that's two in a row that the other team simply didn't want the win.

The talent differential on the field was incredible ... but on the sidelines it was a mis match.

Kraft crying on the podium about the horror and injustices laid before them for the past two years really made me laugh.

Atlanta's defense deflated after the 3rd quarter like Tom Brady's balls.

Being a Jets fan, I couldn't bring myself to cheer for the Pats. So was rooting for Atlanta by default. Also would have liked to see a new face holding up the Lombardi Trophy on a team who had never won the big game.

Wasn't meant to be.  Brady and Belicheck are the best coach/QB team ever. Even if Brady is about as mobile as a statue at his age  :hihi:

I didn't get the play calling on that series after the Julio Jones catch... BUT lets not act like one series determined the outcome of that game. The Pats scored 31 unanswered points after the falcons scored to make it 28-3 with 6 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. They scored 19 in the 4th quarter alone. The Falcons last 4 possessions were Punt, Fumble, Punt, Punt.

It gets to a point where speed and raw talent fall to experience and in game adjustments. That happened at the end of the game, Atlanta panicked when New England kept coming... They are used to getting up big (28-3 for example) and watching the other team accept defeat.

The Pats deserve a ton of credit for execution.  And I agree...one series did not determine that game.

But Atlanta lost at least as much as (and maybe slightly more than), the Pats won that game.  Mistake after mistake, penalty after penalty, bad play call after bad play call.  The defense was also gassed because, even with a 28 to 3 lead, the Pats ruled timed of possession all the way through the game.

The Pats actually didn't make all that much in terms of adjustments in the 2nd half.  Pretty similar play calling (Edelman and White, over and over, to the same spots), pretty similar defensive scheme.  The difference was....where in the first half Atlanta was a step ahead and playing smart...in the 2nd half they were a step behind, and playing dumb.

The Pats deserve credit for jumping on those mistakes, and taking advantage. And Brady, for sure, deserves credit for his ability to deliver the ball. But if the Falcons don't make those mistakes, they win that game in a blowout. And if they don't make that last one, and Matty ice either dumps the ball or they just run 3 running plays and kick...the Pats lose in a squeaker.

There's no way to objectively watch that game and not thing "The Falcons just pissed that win away".

I agree they pissed it away, but I think a significant piece of that is that the Pats pulled their heads out of their asses in the 2nd half. The Pats spotted them 14 points on turnovers which allowed the Falcons to play the way they like... up. Once the Pats came out in the 2nd half and played the way they should have all game they put pressure the Falcons and they pissed their pants. It showed up in on the field decision making (Ryan taking the sack up the middle)  and in game play calling. Although I chalk part of that up to a quote from before the where one of the Running Backs (maybe Freeman) said they had their game plan and it is the same every week 'we do what we want'... Only running 4 times in the 4th quarter sort of defines the "you aren't going to change the way we do things" theme of that quote.

If you can't change your play calling to meet the situation you aren't going to win. It's situations like this that make me giggle when the Matt Ryan's and Cam Newton's of the world win MVP's while Tom Brady has just 2. The fact that Matt Ryan never even thought of checking into a run on the Pats 23 yard line with 4 minutes to go killing the clock and kicking to put them up 11. After the Refs botched the XP block in the 2nd quarter, the Pats would't have attempted it in that spot.

The other thing is mistakes or not, 30 other QB's would not have been able to drive their team down the field for 25 points (including 2 2pt conversions) in that time frame.

So with that said, YES, Atlanta blew it, but no one else in the league wins that game... Which is why I think you have to go 60% Atlanta pissed down their leg and 40% Pats won it.

I don't know about 60/40, but I think that first statement is a fair assessment, no other team could have done what the Pats did.  I would disagree, though, that the 22-yd line sequence did not decide the game.  Every fuck-up by Atlanta and every great play by the Pats, on its own, decided the game.  If not for even one of those things happening, Pats have no chance to tie before end of regulation.  Everything had to line up for them the way it did, take one factor out of the equation and the result fails. 

There were a lot more outside throws by Brady in the comeback to Amendola, Hogan, and Mitchell. They changed it up. They played with a lot more urgency on defense too, pressuring Ryan a lot more and did a much better job against the run. Definitely made the necessary adjustments. It certainly took awhile, but they finally imposed their will in the fourth. While it was excruciating to watch them come back so slowly, it might have actually helped keeping the Atlanta D on the field for so long. They were definitely out of gas down the stretch.

I can't say I knew they had it all the way. I wasn't really nervous until halftime, but even then I was hoping for a stop and a TD to cut it to 11. Of course that didn't happen and they went down 25 instead. It was a slow grind from there. Even when Gostkowski missed the PAT and it was 28-9, I tried my best to rationalize. No big deal, it's still a 3 possession game. What's the difference being down 19 or 18? Always trying to look on the bright side. I've learned over the years not give up on this team. Despite getting blown out at that time they were driving the ball and controlling the time of possession. They just weren't putting points on the board and were being careless with the ball. Thankfully that all changed and they completed the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history.

Thanks for that mockery of deflategate Goodell. Your master plan worked to perfection. Piss Brady off to completely refocus and reenergize him, check. Give the Patriots as a team that extra motivation to right a wrong, check. It all worked out the way it was meant to be in the end. Until the next made up conspiracy. Peace!

Oh, and Brady is the greatest QB ever. Case closed. Everyone else is playing for 2nd place. Thanks for participating.

You can certainly make that argument but him winning or losing last week has no reall bearing on his standing. He's an all time great quarterback no matter what happened last week or going forward.

No objective football fan would rank him higher or lower based on the result of that game that they had no business winning if they even had half way competent coaching in Atlanta.

There is simply no way to prove he's better than Unitas or Montana or Elway or Manning or Marino . Different eras and all are incredible.

Unless you are a patriot fan and then you can say he's the best ever if it makes you happy...

Agreed, he was the best ever prior to this last Super Bowl but 5-2 sounds and looks a lot better than 4-3 so it does help. And obviously it's hard to compare eras, but Brady has done it for 16 years with completely different casts of characters each time. Even this team differed quite a bit from the team two years ago.

Lots of love for Victor Cruz ... will always be one of my favorite Giants.

He might get a tryout somewhere but I think he's done.

Love Marshall for the Giants!

Looks like Bills are keeping "The Truck" (Tyrod Taylor).

And the 'Boys are NOT keeping "The lame Duck" (Tony Romo).

;)

Looks like the Steelers are going after Dre Kirkpatrick or Logan Ryan.

Logan is likely to outprice himselff from the Patriots liking. Pats signed Stephon Gilmore from the Bills today for 14 million per and reports are they're considering trading Malcolm Butler for Brandin Cooks and a first round pick. I can't see them rostering, never mind paying for two #1 corners, so I'd expect another shoe to fall.

I'm assuming once the dust clears Butler will play a year on his RFA Tender so he has more control next year and gets paid like a UFA. I don't see many teams giving up a #1 and paying him as a top 3-5 CB. New Orleans is unique in that they can just return the 32nd pick that New England sent for Cooks, and then bundle a 3rd in... but the wild card there is they also have to lock Butler in for at least Gilmore money... I see this making more sense for all parties (excluding the Pats) next year.

I hope he comes crawling back. He'll get paid big time next season. He just has to wait his turn. It's just business.

Martavis Bryant conditionally reinstated.

Brown, Bryant, Bell, and Green - oh baby :smoking: