Are you ready for some NFL Football? 2014 Edition.

[saevel25]

This is my favorite.  Brady is GOAT because he won 3 super bowls and that's all that matters.  The TEAM has been better than anyone over the last 10 years, even though there are 8 others with more super bowl wins, because...I guess regular season win percentage is more important than super bowls?  Makes no sense.

You do need to actually win in the regular season to even make the playoffs. Though with the NFL expansion with the playoffs they are just going to downgrade that even more now. Does closing the deal matter, yea. When a team averages over 12 wins a season in the NFL that is something very impressive. You can say that the NEP have been the most dominant team in NFL history over a 15 year long stretch.

Over the past 14 years they averaged 12 wins, 3 Superbowls, 5 Superbowl appearances, 8 conference championship appearances.

Dallas's longest stretch like that was 6 years in the early 90's with 3 out of 6 SB wins.

Maybe the best team to compare them to is the 49ers from the 80's into the 90's when they averaged nearly 13 wins a season over 15 years, and were 5/5 in Superbowls.

So yes, I would put this stretch of consistency 2nd to only the 49ers. The only difference is that the NEP go beat in the Superbowl 2 times versus the 49ers never losing in a Superbowl during that stretch.

I might say the NEP have been the 2nd greatest franchise in history in terms of putting together a long stretch of consistent winning.

Also that brought up a good point from Cowherd this morning. He was talking about the fascination of total superbowl wins, and not taking into consideration appearances. No one really gives the Bills a lot of credit in the early 90's for going to 4 STRAIGHT Super Bowls. Though they didn't win any, they were amazingly consistent over those 4 years and should be thought of as one of the best teams during that 4 year stretch.

Even though Super Bowl wins are what every team is striving for in the NFL. When it comes to legacy, appearances should matter as well. I would say the Bills 4 appearances are more impressive than a team who has been to the Superbowl once and won it.

Heck I would say Tom Brady having 3 wins with 5 appearances is more impressive then Montana's 4 wins in 4 appearances just because Brady got to the SB two more times than Montana.

[dsc123]

You do need to actually win in the regular season to even make the playoffs. Though with the NFL expansion with the playoffs they are just going to downgrade that even more now. Does closing the deal matter, yea. When a team averages over 12 wins a season in the NFL that is something very impressive. You can say that the NEP have been the most dominant team in NFL history over a 15 year long stretch.  Over the past 14 years they averaged 12 wins, 3 Superbowls, 5 Superbowl appearances, 8 conference championship appearances.  Dallas's longest stretch like that was 6 years in the early 90's with 3 out of 6 SB wins.  Maybe the best team to compare them to is the 49ers from the 80's into the 90's when they averaged nearly 13 wins a season over 15 years, and were 5/5 in Superbowls.  So yes, I would put this stretch of consistency 2nd to only the 49ers. The only difference is that the NEP go beat in the Superbowl 2 times versus the 49ers never losing in a Superbowl during that stretch.  I might say the NEP have been the 2nd greatest franchise in history in terms of putting together a long stretch of consistent winning.  Also that brought up a good point from Cowherd this morning. He was talking about the fascination of total superbowl wins, and not taking into consideration appearances. No one really gives the Bills a lot of credit in the early 90's for going to 4 STRAIGHT Super Bowls. Though they didn't win any, they were amazingly consistent over those 4 years and should be thought of as one of the best teams during that 4 year stretch.  Even though Super Bowl wins are what every team is striving for in the NFL. When it comes to legacy, appearances should matter as well. I would say the Bills 4 appearances are more impressive than a team who has been to the Superbowl once and won it.  Heck I would say Tom Brady having 3 wins with 5 appearances is more impressive then Montana's 4 wins in 4 appearances just because Brady got to the SB two more times than Montana.

Thats not even close to responding to my point. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/76052/are-you-ready-for-some-nfl-football-2014-edition/1470#post_1100185"]See, I don't think it really does, because (this really isn't supposed to sound as cynical as it does) the integrity isn't there in the first place.  Deep breath ...... The Vikings and Panthers and Aaron Rodgers doctor balls, and Jeff Blake admits to doctoring balls all the time, and Brad Johnson bribes guys to doctor Super Bowl balls, and guys on every team take steroids to get an edge, and the Chargers put stickum on their uniforms, and the Broncos linemen put vaseline on their uniforms, and Belicheck tapes people, and the Saints purposely injure people, as does Ndamukong Suh and a handful of others, and supposedly Mike Shanahan ran a scheme involving headphones in all of his players helmets to call plays or whatever, and Mike Tomlin trips people, and that assistant coach on the Jets trips people, and the Broncos and the 49ers and the Cowboys and the Redskins and the Raiders cheat the salary cap, and the Broncos (man they keep coming up a lot) also pulled a "spygate" in 2010, and the New York Giants fake injuries, and Ray Lewis uses Deer Antler spray, and ... well, I think you get my point.  In a league where EVERYBODY is trying to get a leg up, you have to quantify exactly how serious the cheating is, otherwise, they're all cheating and there is zero integrity.  Slightly under inflated balls are certainly not the most egregious on that list, and I'd contend, nowhere even near the top. [/quote] Yeah, and all of those guys were, or should have been punished. Why not the pats? Payton was suspended for an entire season, for something that everyone said other teams do, without any proof of his involvement. Goodell Said he should have know and suspended him. Tomlin tripped one player on one play. Do you think the deflated footballs made one bit of difference on one play? The Patriots certainly do,or they wouldn't do it. Tomlin was fined 100K. Why does Belicheck get a pass when he's already a proven cheater? [quote name="teamroper60" url="/t/76052/are-you-ready-for-some-nfl-football-2014-edition/1470#post_1100180"]Your blind hatred is showing...  There are not 8 teams with more Super Bowl wins in the past decade.  There are two, the Steelers and the Giants (who won both of theirs over the Patriots).   Everone else who has won a Super Bowl in the past decade is in a tie with NE, who last won it on Feb. 6, 2005.    In fact, there aren't 8 teams with more Super Bowl wins total.  There are 5 and if not for a couple of fluke plays, there would be only one.   As of Sunday, NE moves into a three-way tie for the most appearances all time in the Super Bowl and in the B/B era, no team has been there more times.  Hate them if you want.   But at least be realistic when you do. As far as GOAT, either team or player, that is a discussion for which there can never be a consensus.   The game/rules has changed too much over the years to ever definitively prove who or what team is the absolute best (the same can be said in virtually any sport).  The best you can do is compare them to their peers from the same era and even then it seems there is not going to be a consensus.. [/quote] Either that or I was off by a week. there are 7 teams with more championships than the patriots over the past 9 years and 51 weeks.

[teamroper60]

Either that or I was off by a week. there are 7 teams with more championships than the patriots over the past 9 years and 51 weeks.

As I said, your hatred is showing.   Rather than trying to change the parameters when proven wrong, you might as well embrace it....

[dsc123]

As I said, your hatred is showing.   Rather than trying to change the parameters when proven wrong, you might as well embrace it....

I havent pretended to be a fan. I thought of them having won In 2001,2003, and 2004, but those were the regular seasonyears.

[Gunther]

As I said, your hatred is showing.   Rather than trying to change the parameters when proven wrong, you might as well embrace it....

Stop with the hatred talk. It's ridiculous and childish and will never win you an argument. There are legitimate beefs with the Pats and Belichek. Respond to that rather than trying to discredit your opponent.

[teamroper60]

Stop with the hatred talk. It's ridiculous and childish and will never win you an argument. There are legitimate beefs with the Pats and Belichek. Respond to that rather than trying to discredit your opponent.

For the record, hate is defined as an intense or passionate dislike.   Sounds exactly like what his posts have portrayed to me.   I have no  problem with that, so I have no need to try discrediting him and in fact, I was not.   We all have our favorites (and the Pats aren't even my favorites but I do respect what they have accomplished).   Strong emotions is part of what makes fans into fans and without them, sports would not exist.   My comments were directed specifically to the error in his and the fact he even went so far as to change the parameters to make his argument valid.   I call that hate and the definition backs me up.  The fact you don't like it and what you think of my comments is of no consequence to me at all.

With regard to legitimate beefs with NE, ok, fine.  The rest of the league has moved on from spygate years ago and as has been pointed out, NE is far from the only offender to exist.  Hell, they aren't even the most recent to have taped opposing teams signals, and yet they are the only ones thought of as cheaters.    (Incidentally, the Patriots have a higher winning percentage since spygate than before it broke, so it is obvious videoing signals wasn't really the reason they won games.)   So continue to live in the past if you must, that's your perogative but understand spygate is in the past and so far, it has not actually been proven that NE altered the pressure in those footballs after the refs inspected them.

[dsc123]

For the record, hate is defined as an intense or passionate dislike.   Sounds exactly like what his posts have portrayed to me.   I have no  problem with that, so I have no need to try discrediting him and in fact, I was not.   We all have our favorites (and the Pats aren't even my favorites but I do respect what they have accomplished).   Strong emotions is part of what makes fans into fans and without them, sports would not exist.   My comments were directed specifically to the error in his and the fact he even went so far as to change the parameters to make his argument valid.   I call that hate and the definition backs me up.  The fact you don't like it and what you think of my comments is of no consequence to me at all.  With regard to legitimate beefs with NE, ok, fine.  The rest of the league has moved on from spygate years ago and as has been pointed out, NE is far from the only offender to exist.  Hell, they aren't even the most recent to have taped opposing teams signals, and yet they are the only ones thought of as cheaters.    (Incidentally, the Patriots have a higher winning percentage since spygate than before it broke, so it is obvious videoing signals wasn't really the reason they won games.)   So continue to live in the past if you must, that's your perogative but understand spygate is in the past and so far, it has not actually been proven that NE altered the pressure in those footballs after the refs inspected them.

Im okay with being called a Pats hater. It's true. But you tend to miss the point of what people say to you. for example, Gunther did not say that I'm not a hater, he said calling me a hater doesn't get you anywhere. It's not about changing the parameters so that I'm right. my original point was that they haven't won anything in a long time. for me, this is about the pats, not makimg aure that i am "right". Also, the higher winning percentage after spygate doesn't mean the tapes didn't help them. those were different patriots teams, playing different opponents, at a different times. Plus,by the time the patriots were slapped for spygate, Brady had the rule changed so he could deflate his footballs and the pats stopped fumbling .;)

[Golfingdad]

Yeah, and all of those guys were, or should have been punished. Why not the pats? Payton was suspended for an entire season, for something that everyone said other teams do, without any proof of his involvement. Goodell Said he should have know and suspended him. Tomlin tripped one player on one play. Do you think the deflated footballs made one bit of difference on one play? The Patriots certainly do,or they wouldn't do it. Tomlin was fined 100K. Why does Belicheck get a pass when he's already a proven cheater?

Oh, absolutely they should be punished ... accordingly.  All I'm pointing out is that the "proven cheaters," and "culture of cheating" type comments are awfully unfair and biased.  What they've done is no more a detriment to the "integrity of the game" than much of the other stuff that I've mentioned.

Further, I was reminded today that the actual infraction that led to the spigot punishment was not that they filmed the other teams sideline when they weren't supposed to, it was that they filmed from the wrong location.  So any "the tapes helped them win" type comments are a tad overstated.

I'll add one more:  the Broncos were caught illegally taping a 49ers PRACTICE (not a game, not a game, not a game, not, not, not a game ... I'm talkin' 'bout practice!) in 2010.  The Patriots filmed something they were allowed to film but from the wrong location, and the Broncos (a few years later with the Patriots punishment fresh in everybody's minds) filmed something they weren't even supposed to be seeing, and yet the Patriots have the "proven cheaters" moniker.

It really makes no sense.

[teamroper60]

Im okay with being called a Pats hater. It's true. But you tend to miss the point of what people say to you. for example, Gunther did not say that I'm not a hater, he said calling me a hater doesn't get you anywhere.

It's not about changing the parameters so that I'm right. my original point was that they haven't won anything in a long time. for me, this is about the pats, not makimg aure that i am "right".

Also, the higher winning percentage after spygate doesn't mean the tapes didn't help them. those were different patriots teams, playing different opponents, at a different times. Plus,by the time the patriots were slapped for spygate, Brady had the rule changed so he could deflate his footballs and the pats stopped fumbling .;)

I didn't miss anything.  I clearly see that you changed the parameters so that your comment about super bowl wins became accurate. Spin it how you want, when you changed the parameters to 9 years and 51 weeks, you did it and the only reason to do it was to make your comment right.  Hell, let's change them to the past 13 months.  Then we can say no team other than the Seahawks has won anything since they are the only team to have won a Super Bowl during that period!  BTW, it was not just Brady but also Manning who lobbied for teams to use their own footballs, so athough he played a part in it, you can't lay that solely on Brady.  But again, you write it how you want it to be, facts be damned.

As of Sunday, the Pats will have been to the Super Bowl more times in the past decade (your original criteria) than any other team and as many under your modified criteria, which means they were the AFC champion more times (or as many times, depending on which set of criteria you choose to use) than any other team in that period.  They have won more games than any other team during either criteria period and are one of only 4 teams in the history of the NFL to complete a regular season undefeated and untied.   They are also the only team to ever win 18 games in a row in one season (also accomplished during either of your criteria periods).   So saying they haven't won anything is wrong and invalidates your own argument since it clearly flies in the face of documented facts.   They have won and won more than any other team in the league, no matter how you try to spin it.

[teamroper60]

I see the Seahawks are going to get a signal from a ref, should the Patriots use one of their ineligible receiver formations.. http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-to-assist-seahawks-in-iding-pats-ineligible-receiver-sets/ar-AA8Kcb4 Probably won't mean much but since all they are supposed to do is notify the opposing team of eligible/ineligible receivers, this seems like something of an extra step..

[dsc123]

I didn't miss anything.  I clearly see that you changed the parameters so that your comment about super bowl wins became accurate. Spin it how you want, when you changed the parameters to 9 years and 51 weeks, you did it and the only reason to do it was to make your comment right.  Hell, let's change them to the past 13 months.  Then we can say no team other than the Seahawks has won anything since they are the only team to have won a Super Bowl during that period!  BTW, it was not just Brady but also Manning who lobbied for teams to use their own footballs, so athough he played a part in it, you can't lay that solely on Brady.  But again, you write it how you want it to be, facts be damned. As of Sunday, the Pats will have been to the Super Bowl more times in the past decade (your original criteria) than any other team and as many under your modified criteria, which means they were the AFC champion more times (or as many times, depending on which set of criteria you choose to use) than any other team in that period.  They have won more games than any other team during either criteria period and are one of only 4 teams in the history of the NFL to complete a regular season undefeated and untied.   They are also the only team to [U]ever[/U] win 18 games in a row in one season (also accomplished during either of your criteria periods).   So saying they haven't won anything is wrong and invalidates your own argument since it clearly flies in the face of documented facts.   They have won and won more than any other team in the league, no matter how you try to spin it.

The Patriots were accused a filming walk-through, too but they denied it and it wasn't proven. Who was the Broncos coach at the time? I wonder where he learned that from. And where is that coach now? People being up that point about the pats just filming from the wrong location but I'm not sure that it's true. Belicheat talked about it the other day and said they were just filming what everyone else in the stadium could see, but that they were wrong. It sounds like there's more to it, like if they were in the correct place maybe they couldn't see the signals. Why else would they get such a big penalty and have the tapes destroyed? I know this doesn't amount to much, it just doesn't pass the sniff test to me. Also, I find it really hard to believe that they cheated for a purpose other than helping them win games. Here's what Wikipedia says:In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

[saevel25]

Thats not even close to responding to my point.

Maybe not clearly enough.

My point is that no one would say that over the past 10 years the NYG have been the better team. If you look at all the 10 years, no way anyone would say they have been the better team over that entire period.

The only thing people can say is that the NYG have been the better team on one day, on two instances in the Superbowl.

So yes the regular season matters.

[meenman]

Maybe not clearly enough.  My point is that no one would say that over the past 10 years the NYG have been the better team. If you look at all the 10 years, no way anyone would say they have been the better team over that entire period.  The only thing people can say is that the NYG have been the better team on one day, on two instances in the Superbowl.  So yes the regular season matters.

Actually you are wrong because I would say the NYG are a better team, a classier team and a team that obviously gets bored during the regular season. The patsies have played in a very weak division and have the equivalent of 7 bye weeks a year during much of that time. In baseball terms, the patsies are mr.may while the Giants are mr. October

[dsc123]

Maybe not clearly enough.  My point is that no one would say that over the past 10 years the NYG have been the better team. If you look at all the 10 years, no way anyone would say they have been the better team over that entire period.  The only thing people can say is that the NYG have been the better team on one day, on two instances in the Superbowl.  So yes the regular season matters.

Yet when we talk goat, Brady gets the nod because of super bowl wins, during his trent differ years. In other words, with Brady, you say he's the best because super bowl win totals are the deciding factor. But then you declare the pats the best team over a decade when others win more championships. Despite the fact that super bowls are more indicative of a teams greatness than a players.

[Slice of Life]

Yet when we talk goat, Brady gets the nod because of super bowl wins, during his trent differ years.

In other words, with Brady, you say he's the best because super bowl win totals are the deciding factor. But then you declare the pats the best team over a decade when others win more championships. Despite the fact that super bowls are more indicative of a teams greatness than a players.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

The Pats won their Super Bowls before Brady even got to his prime. Look at the defenses on those teams.

Nobody should argue that the Pats haven't been one of the most consistently "good" teams in the NFL, but to say it's because of Brady is absurd. When he went down with an ACL tear, their backup (Matt Cassel) led them to what, 11 wins? When Peyton went down with an injury, the Colts won 2 games.

[ghalfaire]

Pats 21, Seahawks 24.   too close to call really and whoever's defense works better on Sunday wins.

[dsc123]

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

The Pats won their Super Bowls before Brady even got to his prime. Look at the defenses on those teams.

Nobody should argue that the Pats haven't been one of the most consistently "good" teams in the NFL, but to say it's because of Brady is absurd. When he went down with an ACL tear, their backup (Matt Cassel) led them to what, 11 wins? When Peyton went down with an injury, the Colts won 2 games.

Right.

I'd give them that the Pats are "one of" the best over the past 9 years and 51 weeks, and that they're probably the most consistently good--as you say, even when Brady misses the year.

[trickyputt]

How would the coaches use the intelligence they are not (lol) supposed to gather? Knowledge is one thing, but integration of details into a actual game plan is even more important. Obviously knowing the opposing team playbook is a given, but both teams have 18 games on tv for review already So thats not what I would consider the marginal intelligence that could assist a game plan and get a W.