DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2018 NFL Season NFL Post Season 2018 Chiefs vs Pats

Exactly - call a damn timeout in OT to give your defense a rest. Idiot.

No it won't...because EVERYONE outside of New England is SICK and TIRED of the Patriots. Now, if the Rams blow the Patriots out AND Brady retires, that would be an AWESOME Super Bowl.

I agree. The Patriots are obviously a great team, but I'm sick of 'em too.

Agree, and the Pats fans that will show up are obnoxious as hell.

I could never root for the Cheatriots.

I have a great appreciation for football played the right way,therefore I have been a closet NE fan for many years.If they win,good,if they lose,too bad.I just enjoy watching them play.

This is what I don't get. All over social media AND here, people were complaining that the fix was in and the NFL wanted the Pats to win. You're either a fan of theirs, sick of them or like me, enjoy watching a historic dynasty even though I'm ready for it to be over. Meaning, most of the country is ready to not see them in the Super Bowl. Heck, a small amount will boycott the SB because they're in it again. The NFL wouldn't orchestrate the Pats into the Super Bowl again, on purpose. They'd be doing whatever they could to get the Chiefs in instead.

Reid never wins the big games, that’s why he was fired in philly. I suspect probably won’t here if he can’t win with that talent. They need defensive help though. You can’t have the best offense and the worst defense and think you’re going to win in playoffs.

That being said pats are love/hate for me. Hate all their bandwagon fans but respect what they’ve been able to do. Probably won’t ever see another dynasty like this in the FA era

I agree. We are watching/witnessing history in color.

I hope that they win ... and like all old Hollywood heros ... ride off into the sunset. A new era is on the horizon.

There are a lot of us out there. I get that some people are sick of them, BSPN seems to especially have it out for them, but there are a lot of us who respect what they've done over the years and appreciate good, sound football.

What I've seen from the Patriots over the last several years is not winning with superior talent. It's winning by being more clever, with solid/cunning coaching and game planning, accuracy and great decision making by Brady, and that sort of thing.

The Pats winning will never be like the Browns winning (to me anyway) but I've been pulling for them in the playoffs and will in the Super Bowl as well.

There's no reason to hate a player or team for being successful. Observe what they do and figure out a way to do it better.

j/c:

I had to work last night so I just watched some of this game late this morning then the rest of it this afternoon. It was very enjoyable to watch/really good game. Too bad the Patriots won, but they are a hard team to beat, so hats off to them.

I have some bad news for you. CBS has the Super Bowl this year; Nantz and Romo are doing the broadcast. Personally, I thought he was spot-on during that final Patriots' drive, calling at least 3 key plays just before they happened.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/01/11/super-bowl-announcers-broadcast-tv-channel-network-commentators

As I said, knowledgable, but annoying. I'll go to a bar to watch the game, then I don't have to listen to him

There's always the mute button. I use it quite a bit for NFL broadcasts.

Best part about the Pats winning is that we won't be subjected to the irony of Pats fans complaining about the referees.

Why they're hated:

1. They win so much.
2. They cheat.
3. Belichick has the personality of a footstool (in public at least).
4. Brady screams at his teammates on the field and on the sideline, and seems to have a sense of entitlement. A good leader does not embarrass a teammate in public.
5. Joe Montana is the real GOAT.

Sorry, but no ... 5 (going on 6?) > 4.

Hope Baker breaks that record!

I'd be ecstatic with 1.

Joe was 4-0 in SBs, and didn't throw a pick in any of them.

And now I'll really nitpick. ...Brady is barely above .500 and shouldn't have won in 2002 (tuck rule), and should have lost to Seattle and Atlanta were it not for coaching miscues.

Pick #199 has 5 Super Bowl rings on his fingers, playing the hardest position on the field. I’d say he’s over-achieved.

Say what you will but Otto Graham was 7-3 in 10 straight Championship games ...

I think Montana was a QB also, so he played the hardest position on the field, as well.

Montana was like a flash fire, burned bright but not long. Brady’s burned all night, brightly.

If you consider 11 or 12 years not very long. He played at a very high level for over a decade, which was perfectly normal back then. Not many (and by that I mean nobody) has done it as long as Brady has.

They didn't protect QB's or put as big an emphasis on passing offense like they do now. I'd like to think some of the greats would have had similar success. No doubt in my mind had Marino played in this era and played for BB he'd probably have 6 rings by now. That dude is still to me the best QB to throw a ball

5 > 4

I never understood why a player would be punished by advancing to the title game/series more than others (or having the longevity of a career that enabled him to play better longer). 4-0 is not better than 5-4 (probably soon to be 6-4). Had Montana been able to win more playoff games, he might have lost a few Super Bowls, but he couldn't get his team there that many times.

Ultimately, they're both on the Mount Rushmore of NFL great QB's. However, If I'm drafting one of them at 21, knowing how their career shakes out, I'm taking Brady without a bit of doubt.

Greatest Of All Time

Well if you are going to make the unreasonable leap that QBs deserve all of the credit for winning super bowls without considering the 100 other factors in play that it takes to win in the NFL.... then I suppose you can also blame them unreasonably too.

I've seen the argument, "How many SBs does Tom Brady win without Belichick?" Which gets the obvious response, how many does Montana win without Walsh... and on and on it goes....

In the end, we are assigning full credit to one person, that which it took 80 people to accomplish...


I agree 100%..

It's kind of the Lebron vs Jordan argument. Everyone says Jordan is better because he went 6 for 6 in the Finals. As if that is the end-all-be-all or any comparison. He also lost in the first round 3 times and missed the playoffs twice. Lebron missed the playoffs in his first two years, but hasn't lost earlier than the 2nd round since then. In the same number of seasons, Jordan "averaged" a playoff exit deep into the 2nd round, while Lebron has averaged an exit early in the 3rd round. So while Jordan has more overall championship, you're more likely to get deeper into the playoffs with Lebron. And that's before you get into the whole, "Did Jordan ever have to play against super-teams in the playoffs" arguments.

It's a bar argument in the end. It's meaningless.

Sure, as you said, it's a team game, but for QB's, that logic gets thrown out the window sometimes (I suppose it also happens for NBA superstars too, as Excel pointed out). Brady gets "credit" for beating the Seachickens, but if Butler doesn't intercept the DUMBEST PLAY CALL in the history of sports, Brady loses that SB. Somehow, the credit ends up on Brady's resume. Heck, Peyton should have been to another Super Bowl but that stupid DB on the Broncos let that Raven WR get behind him, boom. That somehow gets on the "Manning can't win the big one" resume.

It doesn't make sense, but that's how the QB argument goes in a bar. Maybe that's how it only makes sense, it has to happen in a bar.

There are still people out there saying Marino is the best QB of all time. Are they wrong? Maybe or maybe not. I think each person gets to make up their own rules when forming that opinion. Would putting Marino with Bill win more Super Bowls than Tom? Does Tom have "IT" while Dan didn't? Who knows. I suppose you can only argue what did happen, not what might have happened.

Tom has 5 going on 6. Heck, he might get 7. It wouldn't shock me.

I'd like to see Baker get 1.

For the Lebron/MJ argument to truly work like Montana/Brady, Lebron's Finals records needs to be 7-2, not 3-6. But yes, it's generally the same thing. You'd still have people saying MJ's 6-0 would be better than Lebron's 7-2...but nobody is wrong or right. It's your opinion (and bias).

Personally, when the argument comes up here, I say Lebron has 3.5 rings. Winning in Cleveland counts for 1.5. Heck, Durant joining a team that would have probably won the last two titles should somehow count as .75. I'm not salty though, we got our ring and there are 20+ NBA cities that would give their left nut to have the four year run we just had.

No, no, no... all of the fun in the argument is the "what might have happened". Hypothetical equivalence is what makes this so entertaining..

Would Brady be the goat if he had spent the last 20 years with the Bills (and without Belichick)?

If Manning and Brady had switched teams for their careers, all other things being equal, what would have happened?

Those types of arguments are what makes this fun.. and what makes them REALLY fun, is when somebody in the group thinks they know the absolute right answer.

My favorite of those is switching Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith. Put Barry behind that O-line and with Aikman, he'd DEFINIETLY have more yards, TDs and rings than Emmitt, or so "they" say.

I don't buy it, but who knows.

Then instead of 3 super bowls, Aikman might have 5, which would put him in the running for GOAT.