American NFL Football (114 Viewers)

[Vinny Del Pogba]

i cant believe welker is no getting more blame, especially since he decided to get engaged the week of the SB

I watched Mike & Mike on ESPN2 this morning and then the show first take or something after that and they showed that drop about a billion times.

Yeah both those guys are young. Should be around for a while.

Yea, they are both second year guys. I guess I will admit that the injury to Gronk was huge. Their two tight end set was their offense and he looked obviously bothered to me.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

I watched Mike & Mike on ESPN2 this morning and then the show first take or something after that and they showed that drop about a billion times.

well that was teh SB right there

 

[Vinny Del Pogba]

well that was teh SB right there

lol pretty much.

One thing that bothered me about the last drive by the Pats was that 12 men on the field penalty on the Giants. The Pats get five yards on the penalty butthe time that came off the clock for the play which was negated by the penalty does not get put back on the clock.

This could lead to a huge exploit of this rule, think about how a defense can exploit this to kill a game the closing minutes.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

lol pretty much.

One thing that bothered me about the last drive by the Pats was that 12 men on the field penalty on the Giants. The Pats get five yards on the penalty butthe time that came off the clock for the play which was negated by the penalty does not get put back on the clock.

This could lead to a huge exploit of this rule, think about how a defense can exploit this to kill a game the closing minutes.

it's also a free play, so it allows the QB to be more aggressive in his pass selection

 

[Vinny Del Pogba]

it's also a free play, so it allows the QB to be more aggressive in his pass selection

That's a good point, but the defense can also run out 16 defenders t counter that. The penalty doesnt get called till the play is over.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

if its that flagrant they ll penalize team before snap

 

[Vinny Del Pogba]

if its that flagrant they ll penalize team before snap

I don't think they can, or at least there is no current rule saying the refs can penalize them for that before the play. At least not that I know of.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I don't think they can, or at least there is no current rule saying the refs can penalize them for that before the play. At least not that I know of.

well then you got me beat

 

[Vinny Del Pogba]

LOL. Obviously something needs to be done about it, like allow the refs to at least put the time back on the clock.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

or QB can just spike it, but i see what you're saying

 

[JCK]

montana- 4-0 in the super bowl. 11 Touchdowns, 0 Interceptions.

nuff said.



Montana>>>>>>>Brady.

But Elway>>>>>>>>>Montana with all respect to Montana.

 

[Enron]

The QB ain't counting players at that point in the game.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

But Elway>>>>>>>>>Montana with all respect to Montana.

thats very disrespectful to montana

The QB ain't counting players at that point in the game.

he would notive 16 players

 

[Enron]

he would notive 16 players

True.

 

[Vinny Del Pogba]

he would notive 16 players

Well, I was exaggerating a little with 16.

 

[KB824]

But Elway>>>>>>>>>Montana with all respect to Montana.

You are out of your god damn mind, son.

 

[acmilan]

Well, I was exaggerating a little with 16.

just a little

anyway, that moment didn't lose the game for the Pats anyway. The Giants were always the more talented team - better balanced on offense and defense - and that was always gonna have it's say over the course of an entire game, especially with the Pats missing on several opportunities to make it a 2-possession game and having their most dominant player on offense limited to the point of being a non-factor in the game overall.

When a team is inferior on talent, especially on defense, and is missing a player like Gronk has to make all the plays they get a sniff at in order to win a game like this one ... the Pats didn't - dropped passes, a stupid play-call for that safety, causing fumbles but not turning them into turnovers, etc - and that's why they lost the game.

In retrospect, I think this Pats team outdid itself by appearing at the SB alone as that was probably one of the least talented and weak defensively Pats teams in recent memory ... and I am sure the Ravens are still wondering how they couldn't beat them ... well, they were one step away from that, literally

As for the Brady vs Montana/Bradshaw argument, I think some people are forgetting that Brady has achieved his record in an era in football when it was a lot more difficult to build a SB winning/reaching team as it was a lot more difficult to surround a good QB with a great supporting cast than it was in the 70s or 80s. Plus, lets not forget that to lose a SB one needs to take his team to the SB in the first place and Brady has done that 5 times - a SB is not some stand-alone game where an AFC and a NFC teams are just randomly picked out of a pot and put in the SB so a QB has only that game to prove his team's worth ... one should not forget the other 15-18 or whatever games that it took the QB to prove his team was worthy of going to the SB ... so if Montana didn't get his team to a 5th SB, that should also mean something

Am I saying Brady is better than Montana or Bradshaw or whoever else? No, I am not as comparisons like that are just plain meaningless and stupid considering all the different factors and circumstances that come into play in a team sport where 50 or so players are involved and each one of them could have a decisive influence on the outcome of a single game like the SB.

This being said, congrats to the Giants for the win and I hate to say it, Dru, but I told you so

 

[KB824]

just a little

anyway, that moment didn't lose the game for the Pats anyway. The Giants were always the more talented team - better balanced on offense and defense - and that was always gonna have it's say over the course of an entire game, especially with the Pats missing on several opportunities to make it a 2-possession game and having their most dominant player on offense limited to the point of being a non-factor in the game overall.

When a team is inferior on talent, especially on defense, and is missing a player like Gronk has to make all the plays they get a sniff at in order to win a game like this one ... the Pats didn't - dropped passes, a stupid play-call for that safety, causing fumbles but not turning them into turnovers, etc - and that's why they lost the game.

In retrospect, I think this Pats team outdid itself by appearing at the SB alone as that was probably one of the least talented and weak defensively Pats teams in recent memory ... and I am sure the Ravens are still wondering how they couldn't beat them ... well, they were one step away from that, literally

As for the Brady vs Montana/Bradshaw argument, I think some people are forgetting that Brady has achieved his record in an era in football when it was a lot more difficult to build a SB winning/reaching team as it was a lot more difficult to surround a good QB with a great supporting cast than it was in the 70s or 80s. Plus, lets not forget that to lose a SB one needs to take his team to the SB in the first place and Brady has done that 5 times - a SB is not some stand-alone game where an AFC and a NFC teams are just randomly picked out of a pot and put in the SB so a QB has only that game to prove his team's worth ... one should not forget the other 15-18 or whatever games that it took the QB to prove his team was worthy of going to the SB ... so if Montana didn't get his team to a 5th SB, that should also mean something

Am I saying Brady is better than Montana or Bradshaw or whoever else? No, I am not as comparisons like that are just plain meaningless and stupid considering all the different factors and circumstances that come into play in a team sport where 50 or so players are involved and each one of them could have a decisive influence on the outcome of a single game like the SB.This being said, congrats to the Giants for the win and I hate to say it, Dru, but I told you so

It means that Montana missed all of 1991 and all except for one game in 1992, when he was still in his prime. And I am not saying YOU per se, but unless you are living in the belly of the beast known as New England, it gets extremely tiring


And in regards to it being more difficult to win a super bowl now compared to the 70's and 80's, I am going to dispute that. There was no free agency during that period. Teams had to be built through the draft and through trades, which means that those teams could not afford to make any mistakes in those two areas, since they didn't have the "Well, we'll just let money fix our mistakes". It didn't work that way. Also, since there were less teams, the quality of the league was arguably better back then as well.

 

[Vinny Del Pogba]

I'd take Montana as my choice as the best ever.

Elway threw like 80 more interceptions over the course of his career. Still he was a fantastic player.

 

[acmilan]

It means that Montana missed all of 1991 and all except for one game in 1992, when he was still in his prime. And I am not saying YOU per se, but unless you are living in the belly of the beast known as New England, it gets extremely tiring

Brady also missed an entire year in his prime and spent the next trying to get his shit together with a rebuilding Pats team. But two or so lost years are still only part of a QB's career spanning over 12+ years. Staying dominant for a longer period of time is also a feat on its own. But as I said, there are too many circumstances that are peculiar for Brady's, Montana's or any other QBs career hence my point about these comparisons being downright meaningless ... they may be useful in stirring up controversy or fiery SB party talk but if one were to give it a thought, one would realize such comparisons are simply pointless.

I can easily see your point about fans talking crap left and right but that is the case with the fans of any team going thru a good period, so I wouldn't single out the Pats in that regard ... and quite frankly, why do you care so much

And in regards to it being more difficult to win a super bowl now compared to the 70's and 80's, I am going to dispute that. There was no free agency during that period. Teams had to be built through the draft and through trades, which means that those teams could not afford to make any mistakes in those two areas, since they didn't have the "Well, we'll just let money fix our mistakes". It didn't work that way. Also, since there were less teams, the quality of the league was arguably better back then as well.

that's debatable, to say the least. The general opinion out there seems to be that the salary cap/free agency era made it considerably more tricky to not only acquire but also retain top talent and thus build a SB-quality team on a consistent basis. Those changes did eliminate the dynasties of the 70s and 80s, except for maybe NE, and made it impossible, or at least much more difficult, for the big revenue franchises to dominate the league year in year out.

As for the number of teams being lower back then, well, that may be a good point for higher quality of the opposition but also would have made it easier for a given team to concentrate talent on its roster and more difficult for that team to lose that talent, especially with the lack of free agency and salary cap rules. These are exactly the challenges teams in the NFL face today when it comes to building a top roster on a consistent basis.

Anyways, my main point about these comparisons being pointless still stands - different factors and circumstances from top to bottom ... be it in the rules of the game, rules of the NFL, supporting cast, quality of the opposition, etc, etc.