I'm going to try and follow it this year. Watched lots of games over the last few years and think I've got the rules of the game sorted. The whole conference thing is still confusing to me. Tragically, the team that I decided to support, should I ever follow NFL properly, was the Eagles. I understand I'm on to a bit of a loser straight away.
The loss was well deserved, and after the whole "we are the comeback champions of the world" and "hey Goodel, feth you again for two years ago" from both the team and the crowd it was probably much needed as well.
Remember this commercial:
Yes, after the Superbowl each team is undefeated again. And, as the Patriots were reminded, each team is also winless again. It's okay to celebrate the success of last season, but last season is also last season. And nothing you did last season has any impact on what you are going to do this season, so they needed to get their head in the game.
Everybody had the Patriots chalked up for a possible perfect season. If KC would have gotten their rears handed to them, nobody would have been surprised and everybody would have been "first game of the season, playing the Patriots at home, what do you expect". The Patriots, mentally, were probably already thinking that same thing. The Chiefs knew they had nothing to lose and went for it with hunger, and it paid off. The Patriots ate humble pie.
Does this mean the Patriots suck this season? I don't think so. They might be more dangerous now and play that much better for the rest of the season because of that bitter taste in their mouth. This could be the beginning of the end for this Patriots team, but this could just as well be the fire that lights them up this season.
Well, lots of talking heads were talking about how they had a good team of returning players and a smart off-season of getting new players, and that this might be the ingredients for a perfect season. Maybe not talking heads in New England, but the talk was there.
And if my totally anectodal sample size of one is anything to go by, which would be my stepfather, then New England fans have this weird thing where they are constantly complaining that the Patriots are constantly just one decision away from fething the entire season up no matter how good the team actually is. Wasn't the coach basically bitching at the end of the season and complaining about something like "winning this trophy put us weeks behind to prepare for next season, everybody else that lost has it better than us"?
It almost seems like a lot of Patriots fans have a "little brother" like relationship with the team: you can beat up your own little brother, but will stand up to anybody else wanting to beat him up.
Will this be the year that the Browns reach the superbowl?
I shall watch the London games when they're on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: I'm going to try and follow it this year. Watched lots of games over the last few years and think I've got the rules of the game sorted. The whole conference thing is still confusing to me. Tragically, the team that I decided to support, should I ever follow NFL properly, was the Eagles. I understand I'm on to a bit of a loser straight away.
4 and 10. That's the only rule you really need to know if you're a casual fan like me, and it's what I say to people who know nothing about it, but want to watch it.
Yeah, I know the game is a lot more complicated than that, but you have to start somewhere
Did we lose some of the previous years DakkaDakka NFL thread stalwarts? Protesting the NFL? Protesting the OT? No fantasy?
I feel like we should be knee deep in moderately heated discussions about how much is “x team” for real? Is Joe Flacco elite? How does Marvin Lewis still have a job? Controversial calls/penalties Etc etc, and its been nary a word in 3 months.
Huge football guy most of my life. Been a Seahawks fan through all the 4-6 win seasons, even scrimped and saved for season tickets for the last Kingdome and Husky stadium years. Don't really care for it anymore. Billionaire, crybaby owners soured the whole thing for me a bit. Exhorbitant prices were just the last straw.
For me, the whole thing with the players kneeling during the anthem has turned me off of the NFL. The players should find a better way to protest the stuff they are protesting (much of which isn't even true). And since the NFL is just going to let them do it, I won't watch pro football. I didn't watch it religiously before, but now I'm boycotting it along with plenty of other people I know.
I still follow the Chiefs as far as their win/loss ratio and stuff, but I'm not watching any games until they make the players show respect to the flag and the country.
ZergSmasher wrote: For me, the whole thing with the players kneeling during the anthem has turned me off of the NFL. The players should find a better way to protest the stuff they are protesting (much of which isn't even true). And since the NFL is just going to let them do it, I won't watch pro football. I didn't watch it religiously before, but now I'm boycotting it along with plenty of other people I know.
I still follow the Chiefs as far as their win/loss ratio and stuff, but I'm not watching any games until they make the players show respect to the flag and the country.
Soooo, should they start rioting instead? Apparently peaceful protest is not okay.
Though I was surprised the NFL decided not to ban the practice bust just asked players not to. Surprised and impressed because now they're doing this and it's just so much better.
I actually ended up watching football today. No idea what's going on. No idea who anyone is. But I did totally see a guy in a blue uniform (the bills I think) botch a catch right by the sidelines for his own team and one of the guys just off the field threw his hands up like "come on how could you miss that" and that was kind of amusing
ZergSmasher wrote: ... until they make the players show respect to the flag and the country.
Yes. You must display proper support of the state, lest you wish a nighttime visit from the Staatssicherheit for a vacation in Hohenschönhausen.
players should find a better way to protest the stuff they are protesting
I actually agree. I feel that protesting peacefully in a manner that is highly visible yet doesn't disrupt the lives of the general population isn't overall that effective. It's too easy to ignore. I also feel mass peaceful protests aren't the most effective because while they can disrupt the lives of the area's population, it's still easily ignoreable and far too easy for the governmental to conduct cointelpro operations to cause violent confrontations as a means to discredit any message.
They should return to our patriotic roots and have monetarily-targeted destructive protests, aiming to cause millions of dollars of damages to the organizations that they are protesting. They should take a note from Samuel Adams and other patriotic Americans, and use targeted strikes to ransack government offices and destroy specific property. Hell, the New England's End Zone Militia could help make it feel even more authentic.
d-usa wrote: The moment you are forced to “respect” the flag, it’s no longer worth respecting.
It shouldn't be forced; no one is saying someone should point a gun at their head and shoot them if they kneel. I'm just saying it is very rude to refuse to stand for the national anthem and shows disrespect for everything our founding fathers fought for.
Honestly I'm not sure what the right answer is as far as how the guys should protest. I do know that kneeling during the anthem is just making them look like disrespectful asshats. I'm not the only one who feels this way either; you should hear the chorus of boos in the stadiums, at least when it was first happening.
Anyway, while it should not be forced, at least by the government, for anyone to stand during the anthem, I think the NFL should make it mandatory for players since they are very much the public face of the NFL. After all, if I went to work and protested in some way that was very visible to the public while I was at work, I would probably be fired.
The founding fathers didn’t fight for a piece of cloth, they fought for ideals and freedoms. And one of those freedoms is protesting, and speaking up, and using their public face and fame to draw attention to a cause.
The players bring as much money to the owners and league as the league brings to the players. If the league wants to force an issue and the players walk off, then they are out of money. If people stop watching because they put a piece of cloth above the players, they lose money. The NFL is in a tough spot, so the best thing they can do is to honor their contract. And the players have a contract that doesn’t force them to stand. The only reason the NFL even gives a crap about patriotism is because our government is paying them cash to advertise patriotism. It’s only been a couple of years, but I guess we already forgot this:
I remember it. I was just to lazy to look up any contemporary news about it
My dad is sad cause the Giants, his favorite team, are apparently doing horribly this season XD I've decided my favorite team will be the Bills mostly because of the opportunities for cheesy puns and dad jokes. Plus they're apparently the most underdog team in the league which means that when they (statistical inevitability) end up in the playoffs someday I can say I liked them before they won the Super Bowl
d-usa wrote: The moment you are forced to “respect” the flag, it’s no longer worth respecting.
It shouldn't be forced; no one is saying someone should point a gun at their head and shoot them if they kneel. I'm just saying it is very rude to refuse to stand for the national anthem and shows disrespect for everything our founding fathers fought for.
The founding fathers literally fought so that you would have the choice of standing or sitting or doing backflips or whatever you wanted to do during the national anthem. Throwing a fit that people are exercising their freedoms(That the founding fathers fought for) is imo, the most disrespectful and unpatriotic thing you could possibly do. I mean, the National Anthem wasn't even a thing when the Founding Fathers were around, so I am not sure they would even care about it. Honestly, they would probably be disgusted by the whole boycott and reaction towards people exercising the rights they wrote in to the constitution.
But hey, do what you want to do! Boycott away! Free country and everything.
Ahem, meanwhile, back OT relative to the thread title. Brady and NE revisit the pain on Atlanta, who seem to just still be discombobulated from last year's SB collapse.
...and the Bears are starting to win, w-h-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-t?!
It was only a recent thing that the players were on the field during the anthem.
Just stay in the locker room till then.
Or better yet, the Pentagon can stop spending taxpayer dollars on rituals of forced patriotism like this was North Korea or something. Of course, that would take away a valuable chance for football fans, 77% of whom are white, to explain how black people should protest injustice.
Spoiler:
nels1031 wrote: Did we lose some of the previous years DakkaDakka NFL thread stalwarts? Protesting the NFL? Protesting the OT? No fantasy?
One of my coworkers who was into football says he's no longer into it because they no longer have "big hits". I guess tackling is done differently now in response to CTEs? Anyway he said it's not exciting at all anymore.
djones520 wrote: Man, I really don't like football, but you guys must hate it, as hard as you're trying to get this thread locked.
When some guy resurrected this thread asking "whats going on with the NFL" were we not supposed to talk about the most important thing going on in the NFL? Or were we not supposed to respond to the guy who brought up the protests? Where exactly was the line crossed here, in your mind? Honest question.
djones520 wrote: Man, I really don't like football, but you guys must hate it, as hard as you're trying to get this thread locked.
When some guy resurrected this thread asking "whats going on with the NFL" were we not supposed to talk about the most important thing going on in the NFL? Or were we not supposed to respond to the guy who brought up the protests? Where exactly was the line crossed here, in your mind? Honest question.
Getting really close to US political stuff. Just sayin.
feeder wrote: What are the 49ers up to? I followed them when I was a wee lad and Montana/Rice were ripping it up.
Team went to crap. Frank gore got old at the same time as they dumped alex smith for kaepernek (who was a bumb) and alex smith is now on the best team in the league lol. They havn't recovered from those losses yet.
feeder wrote: What are the 49ers up to? I followed them when I was a wee lad and Montana/Rice were ripping it up.
Team went to crap. Frank gore got old at the same time as they dumped alex smith for kaepernek (who was a bumb) and alex smith is now on the best team in the league lol. They havn't recovered from those losses yet.
In addition to all that, they gave the coach that led them to within 1 play of winning the Super Bowl the boot, rather ignominiously.
djones520 wrote: Man, I really don't like football, but you guys must hate it, as hard as you're trying to get this thread locked.
When some guy resurrected this thread asking "whats going on with the NFL" were we not supposed to talk about the most important thing going on in the NFL? Or were we not supposed to respond to the guy who brought up the protests? Where exactly was the line crossed here, in your mind? Honest question.
Getting really close to US political stuff. Just sayin.
When POTUS makes the NFL one of his pet issues, and a huge part of the country jumps on the bandwagon. And when POTUS threatens executive actions against a 1A issue, it becomes political. We are not talking about tax policy or gun control in an NFL thread, we are talking about the flag and “respecting it” in a thread about a league where the flag and “respecting” it has become a primary issue in national news with the POTUS speaking out about this issue.
It also means that on this one issue, politics is not OT in this thread, and as long as it’s civil should be tolerated. Otherwise it’s like trying to talk about North Korea without talking about Trump or ISIS without Trump.
feeder wrote: Well crap. Are they at least still snappy dressers in red and gold?
Still got that going.
Edit: requested a threadlock, my intention was mainly to spur football talk or at least ascertain why there is no football talk since week 1. Instead we get some guy who doesn’t seem like he follows football posting memes and others posting politics. I should’ve known better!
There is plenty football to talk about outside of the short pregame rituals and their attendant controversy, but I guess no one wants to discuss it, or those that were previously willing have moved on.
djones520 wrote: Man, I really don't like football, but you guys must hate it, as hard as you're trying to get this thread locked.
When some guy resurrected this thread asking "whats going on with the NFL" were we not supposed to talk about the most important thing going on in the NFL? Or were we not supposed to respond to the guy who brought up the protests? Where exactly was the line crossed here, in your mind? Honest question.
Getting really close to US political stuff. Just sayin.
In our defense, it is the most interesting thing going on in the NFL right now.
Well that and the ridiculous aggression brought on by concussions. Beastmode pushed a ref! What is that crap?!
bbb wrote: Eagles. It's all about the Eagles. Nothing else matters.
It's funny cause I made my last post and then went upstairs just in time to see the Eagles lose like 30 yards to penalty flags in a row XD They were playing from their own end zone. Is that something that happens a lot?
I'll bite. My team is the Denver Broncos. They have a terrific defense saddled with a lousy offense and horrible special teams. They can beat anybody and yet lose to anybody...with the latter being more likely the way they've played lately. Their QB is tough and smart but he CAN'T. READ. THE FIELD.
Tonight they play their division rival Kansas City Chiefs. Who knows what to expect? This entire season has been hard to predict. Does make it fun sometimes though.
Went to see the Browns Vikings game in Twickenham yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it.
As the other three games were blow-outs, but shouldn't have been on paper, and this one should have been a blow-out on paper, I was kind of hoping it would be reversed - and luckily that was the case!
You always got the feeling that the Vikings would get going but it took three quarters of the game, mostly I think helped by a rather solid Browns defense and a Vikings offence that was lacking some razzmatazz (think that's the best way of putting it - I do wonder how they have won 4 games in a row, and am waiting to see what will happen when they come up against an A-class team that is playing well). But the Browns were simply lacking in offence - seemed much too predictable, and other than some solid effort with the run they just didn't have enough time on the field and give their defence a chance to recover.
Looking forward to see what games are announced for the UK, and where they will play. Sure the Jags are a given, but hoping for more games at Twickenham (which has more atmosphere than Wembley) and no games (as rumoured) at Tottenham Hotspur's ground, as it's a pain to get to and I don't want to get stabbed.
A shoot out between the Steelers and Jags, and the JAGS WIN?!?
And that last play in the Saints Vikings game?
Wow.
Simply...wow.
Should be an interesting weekend coming up!
And you have to wonder about some coaches and their job security after this last weekend's games!
I live in Jacksonville but have been a Pats fan my whole life. Game was intense - you can see the Jags can bring it when they really need to. This puts me in a tough spot really wanting both teams to win. Pats are 7-0 against the Jags. 2-0 in the play offs. Pats have to feel pretty confident about that.
I've never actually seen a game end like the saints game last night. A hail mary into the endzone and a whoever catches it wins yeah...but a midfield pass and nobody touches him? That is just poor defense. Was going for the saints but I think the Vikes are probably the best team this year - they got a good chance to win it all. Eagles will get stomped I think.
My Super Bowl pick just got shot (Saints vs Patriots) but this is why I never bet on games - much too unpredictable!
Alpharius, you ask an interesting question about some coaches and their NFL futures. What I find interesting is how many of these guys make some of the same crucial errors in the same situations, season after season. They aren't stupid like so many disappointed fans wish to claim, yet it's like they just can't get out of their own way of doing things. It happens in warfare with generals too. The truly greats screw up as well, but manage to get back on track while others continue to fail.
*Clearly* they mismanaged MANY aspects of the game.
And I think almost as clearly, they were looking *past* this game, to the AFC Championship.
I know their OC is a hot button for some, but to me, the DC and possibly even the Head Coach should be on the hot seat there.
As for the Pats, they should be OK, but IF the Jags can put serious pressure on Brady rushing only 4 (The Infamous "Giants Model" ), it could certainly be interesting!
Xenomancers wrote: I've never actually seen a game end like the saints game last night. A hail mary into the endzone and a whoever catches it wins yeah...but a midfield pass and nobody touches him? That is just poor defense. Was going for the saints but I think the Vikes are probably the best team this year - they got a good chance to win it all. Eagles will get stomped I think.
#43 Williams was probably told to avoid the PI at all costs since it was Keenum's last shot. I think he expected Diggs to run to the outside to stop the clock, his head is down and he's committed to the tackle already, but his timing is off and he cut blocks #20 which is the real killer. Williams is still fresh out of college and is barely 21, it happens.
*Clearly* they mismanaged MANY aspects of the game.
And I think almost as clearly, they were looking *past* this game, to the AFC Championship.
I know their OC is a hot button for some, but to me, the DC and possibly even the Head Coach should be on the hot seat there.
As for the Pats, they should be OK, but IF the Jags can put serious pressure on Brady rushing only 4 (The Infamous "Giants Model" ), it could certainly be interesting!
I wouldn't put all the blame on the OC - the jags have an outstanding secondary. Jack made an amazing interception on a well thrown and well played ball. Plus - the jags made an amazing 4th and goal opening drive touchdown run with Fournette taking to the air. They did everything they could to come back from those things but they just got outplayed. The only real mistake the steelers made was kicking the onside with 2:20 left in the game and 2 time outs. They had a better chance trying for a 3 and out at that point in the game - not a huge mistake though - a lot of teams would have gone for the onside there.
I don't think Jacksonville can beat the Patriots. I think it's New England's superbowl win at this point as the Eagles have shown they are good, but not great without the QB they had all season, and if the vikings can't stop New Orleans in the second half last Sunday, they certainly won't stop Brady.
The last LA Tech player in the play offs this year is Ryan Allen of the Patriots, so I guess I'll root for the punter.
Tinfoil hat time. When Jay Ajayi was traded to the Eagles I said that I wouldn't be suprised if they do end up playing in London since they have a native and the Eagles were looking so good at the time that the Superbowl wasn't too crazy of a thought and people have been loving Wentz.
Now we find ourselves not only looking at the birds going to London next year, but the team they'll be playing against is also in a conference championship.
So I'm predicting an Eagles Jaguar Superbowl with the Eagles getting the win and the London game will be billed as the rematch. It's a game that could get a lot of buzz over there and for people sick of the Patriots it could make for a lot of buzz leading into the playoffs here.
Alpharius wrote: Well, the Jags can beat the Patriots IF they can effectively rush and disrupt Brady with 4 up front AND if Blake plays another great game.
Unlikely, but possible!
Same thing can happen in the Superbowl, if the Pats make it there.
No guarantees, of course but yes, go Pats!
<---reformed ex-Rams fan.
GO PATS!
The Jags front 4 does seem beastly though... gameplan for Pats is quick slants (Amendola / Gronk!!) and copious running game.
I do think the Jags can beat the Patriots, as the Patriots have looked far from unbeatable this year.
One of the factors in their favour though it that they have done this all before. They know the pressure of playoff games all to well, and I think this cant be under estimated.
Still, as a Dolphins Fan (even though I'm married to a Pats fan!) I would love a Jags win!
As for the other game? Think it depends which Eagles turn up. If its the ones from last week then I think they have enough to take it, if its the Eagles as they were playing just after they lost Wentz then the Viking could take it.
I think I predict a Pats Eagles final, but think id love a Jags Eagles one more.
Though the thought of Foles lifting the Superbowl is a bit baffling......
Is the NFL so lacking in talent overall that one team dominates the Championship consistently? I mean good for the Pats but it is tiring seeing the same thing over and over and over.
*Clearly* they mismanaged MANY aspects of the game.
And I think almost as clearly, they were looking *past* this game, to the AFC Championship.
I know their OC is a hot button for some, but to me, the DC and possibly even the Head Coach should be on the hot seat there.
As for the Pats, they should be OK, but IF the Jags can put serious pressure on Brady rushing only 4 (The Infamous "Giants Model" ), it could certainly be interesting!
Regarding Haley's employment with the Steelers...the issue wasn't their performance in the AFCCG. The Rooneys don't fire coaches like that. The issues were almost certainly about 1) the offense underachieving overall and 2) his personality and personal dramas. Haley is a weird cat who also tends to rub people the wrong way. He was the guy who thought the Chiefs had bugged his offices, alleged that he found a rat in a McDonald's salad, was accused of trashing a house he and his wife were renting, has been in multiple altercations in Pittsburgh bars...etc. As an OC, he's not bad and deserves credit for getting Roethlisberger to rein in the playground stuff. But he also outsmarts himself a lot. I have no idea what they were thinking with the 3 TE sets they opened with against the Jags. Once they ditched it and *got their WRs on the field and attacked the D*, they tore them up. And when the franchise QB also only has a so-so working relationship him...it's an easy call to make.
I was at the Jags game and don't blame Tomlin for kicking offsides. The defense had shown no interest in stopping Jacksonville all day. That puts the HC in a no-win situation. If they kick deep and the Jags run off a couple first downs to win the game, Tomlin would have been criticized for trusting a unit that'd been horrendous and not giving his offense (that had been tearing up a good defense) a chance to win the game. The Steelers also weren't genuinely 'looking past' a team that had beaten them earlier in the year. It was more about their ILBs getting exploited in Shazier's absence, and the well-paid d-line failing to show up for the game.
Anyway, I couldn't care less about the SB. Would have rooted for the Vikes had they made it. *shrug*
@Ahtman -- IMO, the Pats do a really good job at two things that serve them well for the playoffs -- 1) not beating themselves, and 2) dominating what is almost always a ridiculously weak division, thereby getting playoff berths, byes and home field advantages. It's a much tougher road when you have to play in wild card rounds and away from home. Also, playoff meltdowns are a real thing (see the Vikings) and the Pats simply don't do it.
It also doesn't hurt that Brady is arguably the best quarterback of all time and Bill Belichick is a top notch coach. That makes them a perennial contender, especially when you look at their division (as Gorgon notes). I get that people can get tired of it, but it's kind of like the Bulls with MJ- powerhouse teams usually dominate for a while. Also, consider that before Parcells came to the Patriots, they were pretty sorry.They made it to 2 playoff games in the 70s 9lost both), 1 Superbowl in the 80s (where Chicago killed them) and one subsequent playoff appearance would be there last foreight years. Their 1990 record? 1 and 15!
Really, they are a great example of how even a historical bad team can become a winning franchise.
Yeah, Steelers fans often lose their minds over NE, and I get it in a way. The Ben Roethlisberger era would look a lot different without Brady and Belichick so often blocking them. They could have another 2 or 3 SB wins.
But you know, the Cowboys had some great teams in the '70s under Landry. If it hadn't been for the '70 Steelers, they probably would have had 4 SB wins during the decade and been thought of the way that people think of the Steelers of that era. It's a frustrating position to be in, but gak like that happens in sports.
Brady and Belichick are the best QB-coach combo ever, and that's a really hard thing to beat. Brady would be great elsewhere but not as great, just like Belichick was a good goach in Cleveland but not the league's best. They elevate each other.
I should have added the caveat that a) it is a minor gripe at best and b) not a criticism of the Pats but the other teams.
By stats Brady is easily one of the best QBs that has ever played but he still seems to lack that X factor that makes him popular outside of Pats fans for the most part. He is essentially an NPC QB on the hardest setting of a football video game; all game no personality. Hell this was discussed last Superbowl (and before) and really nothing has changed since then tbh.
Ahtman wrote: I should have added the caveat that a) it is a minor gripe at best and b) not a criticism of the Pats but the other teams.
By stats Brady is easily one of the best QBs that has ever played but he still seems to lack that X factor that makes him popular outside of Pats fans for the most part. He is essentially an NPC QB on the hardest setting of a football video game; all game no personality. Hell this was discussed last Superbowl (and before) and really nothing has changed since then tbh.
Gronk otoh is pretty awesome.
Regarding the NPC thing, there's no doubt that his legacy is completely intertwined with his coach and the offensive system. It made Brady greater to have a system tailored perfectly to him by excellent coaches, and then be allowed to spend a crazy long career executing it. Even though he has the accuracy and smarts to be great anywhere, his career is one of a 'system' QB.
Most fans like their QBs to be brash gunslingers. It seems unfair to say that Brady has none of that. He certainly has the swagger on the field, and he went full video game, let 'er rip during those seasons with Moss. And he showed more physical toughness and bravery than most gave him credit for in last year's SB. STILL...he's a guy who's quick to give up on a play, turtle if he needs to, or complain loudly about getting touched in the pocket even while he gets PF flags that no one else would get (see Terrell Suggs' comments on the matter). Those aren't 'good optics' to a lot of fans, even if those things ultimately contribute to the team winning.
Walsh and Montana were probably the previous 'best coach and QB combo', and yet Montana had more improvisation to his game and chafed just enough under Walsh that fans never viewed him quite the same way as Brady. System QB, sure, but there was something more charming and individualistic about him scrambling around and making plays outside the system at times, compared to Brady's unearthly precision executing *within* his system.
And nothing to do with football, but I think some aspects of Brady's personality and lifestyle are going to rub some people the wrong way. He's just not relatable. He tries too hard at times with the 'regular guy' routine, which seems out of touch with the fact that he married a Brazilian diva supermodel (also not a very relatable person or seemingly even a warm one) who dresses him like some kind of GQ cover model. It's a bad mix overall if you want to be liked by the regular folks.
It really is more down to the fact that, outside of a team's area/fanbase, sustained excellence is going to grate.
Sure, you'll get a fair number of front runner add-ons, but you can't blame people for not wanting to see their team not make it, year after year after year.
Of course, they probably should be annoyed more with their own team's inability to get better in every phase, but it is also true that there's a little lightning in a bottle here in New England too, and when it is gone, it isn't going to be this good for a long time - if ever again.
Ah yes. The Patriots fan refrain. "You're all just jealous!"
It's a little more than that. There have been other QBs who won a bunch of SBs -- Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman -- and although it's impossible to quantify or prove, I don't feel like any of them got a fraction of the hate that Brady gets. Aikman even played for the Cowboys, fer crissakes.
Sure, Brady played longer and won more...but he also had a 10 year drought in there, and during that time there wasn't anyone outside of NE or the league offices (*cough*) rooting for him to win another like they did with more 'loveable' QBs like Favre, Manning, etc.
I maintain that Brady's game simply isn't one that people are attracted to or that kids are inspired by, and that his lifestyle is less relatable than even most movie stars. Scandals also figure here, but I'm trying to keep it focused on Brady and not the Pats organization.
Not really. Honestly, I don't think he'd be loved outside of NE even if he was sitting on zero SBs, for the reasons mentioned above. Nothing says a QB has to be a beloved figure though, so it doesn't really matter. I just think it's interesting.
I actually find it strange how so many NE fans seem to still seek affirmation regarding Brady and their team despite all the SB trophies. Is it because of the scandals? I'm not sure that it is...at least not completely.
Thing is we aren't really talking about hate so much as apathy. Other teams hating on other teams is dog bites man but apathy toward one of the statistically best in the game is man bites dog, so to speak.
Well, jags are my team, and fair play to them . Bring on next year, and tom bloody Brady isnt gonna stop me painting up my blood bowl orks as Jag-WAAAGHS!
Ahtman wrote: Thing is we aren't really talking about hate so much as apathy. Other teams hating on other teams is dog bites man but apathy toward one of the statistically best in the game is man bites dog, so to speak.
Agreeing. When you see people complain about Bama and Saban, the current NCAA dynasty, it's the same attitudes.
Common complaint: "It's boring to watch them win every year".
But I believe a lot of it comes down to individual preference, whether you're the kind of person that roots for the Empire or roots for the Rebel Alliance.
Deadnight wrote: Well, jags are my team, and fair play to them . Bring on next year, and tom bloody Brady isnt gonna stop me painting up my blood bowl orks as Jag-WAAAGHS!
Jags had a good season and still have a lot to work with. They played a tough game and it could have broke the other way. Their defense has been brutal. The question moving forward for them is what to do with the offense, especially Bortles' contract.
I really hope the Eagles don't win. I live about an hour outside of the city, and my town got trashed during the after-party from the win against the Vikings. Also, being the classy people we are, this billboard is about 2 miles from my house.
Truely, Philadelphia is the pinnacle of good sportsmanship.
I don't think it is a done deal by any means. Fowles surprised me (or perhaps reminded me) that he isn't just a journeyman QB. It seems like he has taken a few games to get back up to speed, but has definitely hit some momentum at the right time.
I would still put money on the Patriots, but am hoping the Eagles can win or at least make a very good game of it.
bbb wrote: Squats are coming back. If hell is actually freezing over then there's a solid chance that this is the Eagle's year.
Bud Light promised free beer to the whole city if the Eagles won. I am rooting for them at this point just to see if Bud follows through.
In all fairness, that is probably because they are counting on only a smoking crater remaining after the massive riot-party that erupts after an Eagles win.
It'll be a game until the 3rd or 4th quarter when the T(om)-1000 launches endofSB.exe and then it's good game thanks for coming from there because he's just a freak at that point.
I'm teaching at a rural school at the moment, seriously tempted to try and book the computer room or set the kids some handwriting/copying work and try and find a stream of the SB
I’m pretty lukewarm/neutral about this Super Bowl.
While Baltimore was without a football team in the interim of the rormer Baltimore Colts moving to Indy and the Browns moving to Baltimore, we rooted for Philly every week. But once B-more got a team again and I realized the obnoxiousness of a sizeable portion of the Philly fanbase, I drifted from them. They’ve got a great story this season though. I want to root for the underdog as I usually do, but I’m not feeling it.
Meanwhile, I’ve made peace with the fact that Tom Brady is the greatest QB ever, with the greatest coach ever. If he won tonight and a few more in the years to come, I wouldn’t be too upset. We’re watching history unfold and it will be a long time, if ever, until we see another QB/Coach combo like this.
Yeah, already hearing gunshots, fireworks, and car horns within seconds of the game ending. I wonder if my work will be open tomorrow, or if it will be destroyed in the afterparty...
Kevin Hart started Philadelphians’ embarrassing celebrations early.
The comedian and diehard Eagles fan bombarded the on-field NFL Network set after the Eagles’ 41-33 win over the Patriots in Super Bowl LII Sunday night, interrupting an interview with Eagles defensive lineman Fletcher Cox and accidentally dropping an F-bomb on air.
“Philadelphia’s a great city,” Hart said into the microphone. “I thought, I hope this is an example of what we can do. We gave a f–k … ooh.
“I’m out,” he added with a laugh, dropping the microphone and stumbling away.
Prior to the scene, Hart had apparently announced his drunkenness to a national audience.
Hart, who was born and raised in Philadelphia before moving to New York City to pursue a comedy career, wanted his moment to come immediately following the game. He tried to force his way on to the stage to receive the franchise’s first Lombardi Trophy with owner Jeffrey Lurie, coach Doug Pederson, star tight end Zach Ertz and MVP Nick Foles, but security blocked his path to the stairs leading up to the stage.
Hart argued to no avail, as Ertz eventually shimmied his way around him.
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania -- Philly, Philly, Eagles fans! Bud Light has spilled some details concerning their promise of free beer for Philadelphia.
The beer company is making good on their deal to Eagles offensive tackle Lane Johnson.
During an open practice last summer at Lincoln Financial Field, Johnson made his own promise of sorts.
"I've got a lot to prove to this city," Johnson told reporters. "I think if we have a few big years and make the playoffs, if we win a Super Bowl, I'm giving out beer to everybody."
That's when Bud Light chimed in with an idea.
The beer company tweeted Johnson, "Let's make a bet. Win it all and the party is on us. Deal?
"This one's for you Philly!" Johnson replied.
Bud Light went on to change their famous 'Dilly Dilly' catchphrase to 'Philly Philly' to celebrate the Eagles' playoff run.
Following the Eagles' win Sunday night, Bud Light tweeted:
"The @Eagles of Philadelphia have emerged victorious! Join us with @LaneJohnson65 and your 21+ friends at taverns along the parade route to raise one of the Kingdom's favorite light lagers. #PhillyPhilly #DillyDilly."
Bud Light says there will be 25 bars along the parade route where fans get their free cold beverage.
"Use your Eagle eyes to scout them out," Bud Light tweeted.
I'm not big on Bud Light, and I'm not taking off work to go join the masses, but I'm pretty stoked they are actually following through. I hope they actually bring enough. Victory parade for the Phillies:
Spoiler:
It was big enough that SEPTA had to shut down due to overcrowding, and this one is going to be even bigger, based off of last nights photos:
Not a fan of either team, but wow that was an excellent game. Hats off to Pederson for his game plan and Foles for executing it. I thought the Pats would pull it off, because a lot of teams can't handle the pressure against them in the 4th, but the Eagles did it.
Sucks about Cooks. What a hit. And you know with the concussion rules these days, any hit like that means the player is done for for the rest of the game.
Was shocked the helmet to helmet thing didn't net the Eagles a flag too!
Was legal because he was a runner at the point of collision.
The serious blow was benching Malcolm Butler. Hero of a previous Super Bowl victory and a mainstay of the defense for nearly 100% of their snaps this year. Baffling. I don’t follow New England sports channels, but from the headlines I’m seeing, Bill is getting roasted.
Was shocked the helmet to helmet thing didn't net the Eagles a flag too!
Was legal because he was a runner at the point of collision.
The serious blow was benching Malcolm Butler. Hero of a previous Super Bowl victory and a mainstay of the defense for nearly 100% of their snaps this year. Baffling. I don’t follow New England sports channels, but from the headlines I’m seeing, Bill is getting roasted.
Helmet to Helmet is never 'legal' - yes, he wasn't a 'defenseless receiver', but helmet to helmet is a serious no no still.
But yes, the benching of Butler was not only baffling, but could very well be what cost the Pats the Superbowl - no exaggeration, no hot take there.
I think Chung? going off the second time for injury might be an unspoken moment, as he was covering whoever/wherever he was supposed to be covering exceedingly well.
Was shocked the helmet to helmet thing didn't net the Eagles a flag too!
Was legal because he was a runner at the point of collision.
The serious blow was benching Malcolm Butler. Hero of a previous Super Bowl victory and a mainstay of the defense for nearly 100% of their snaps this year. Baffling. I don’t follow New England sports channels, but from the headlines I’m seeing, Bill is getting roasted.
Helmet to Helmet is never 'legal' - yes, he wasn't a 'defenseless receiver', but helmet to helmet is a serious no no still.
But yes, the benching of Butler was not only baffling, but could very well be what cost the Pats the Superbowl - no exaggeration, no hot take there.
Extremely odd decision...
Isn’t “helmet to helmet” also influenced by how deliberate it was? It didn’t look like a targeted “I’m going to bash your head with mine” move...
I really don't care for football at all, but it was nice to see the home team win for once. And I'm pleasantly surprised our rabid fans didn't burn the whole place down with glee.
Yeah, that hit was bad. I am baffled by the attempts to minimize it because it was "technically legal"- it was still an ugly hit, even if it didn't draw a flag.
That being said, the Eagles earned their win. Foles was great and the Pats never managed to stop the Eagles offense. The Patriots offense was slow to get going (what was with that trick play to Brady?) and found out that the Eagles Defense was not a 3 quarter effort. The sack was a great example of how late game intensity pays off.
Congratulations to Philadelphia on it's first Super Bowl win!
jmurph wrote: Yeah, that hit was bad. I am baffled by the attempts to minimize it because it was "technically legal"- it was still an ugly hit, even if it didn't draw a flag.
I don't think anybody is really trying to minimize the hit because it was legal. They are just explaining why it didn't get a flag. If the guy would have gotten his leg caught on the turf in a weird way causing it to get snapped in half, or snap his arm in half while trying to catch himself falling forward, or gotten any number of other injuries resulting from a legal hit it also wouldn't have changed the fact that the hit didn't deserve a flag because it wasn't against the rules.
A hit can be legal, severe, and cause damage all at the same time. And a hit being legal or illegal doesn't really minimize the severity of the impact or any injuries that result from that impact.
Alpharius wrote: Again, helmet to helmets are a big no-go and get flagged all the time.
They don't care so much if the person getting his brain turned to mush is a runner rather than a receiver.
Unlike the NCAA, the NFL thinks that it's okay for a runner to get bashed in the head for whatever reason they think that's okay. Probably a mix of:
- Can't make the game boring
- Real men can take a hit
- Players should have enough situational awareness not to get hit in the head (aka: blame the victim)
- Because the NFL is stupid.
I think the concussion protocol they follow is a joke, and there are a lot of people returning back to the game the same day who probably had a concussion or even if non-concussive shouldn't be allowed to return to the game anyway. As soon as he was down I mentioned that this is what's killing the NFL, in more ways than one. More and more studies are showing that it's not just concussions that are causing long term brain damage, but that just the act of smacking your head over and over again is causing long term brain damage (who would have thought).
Maybe this hit on the world stage will cause a change, and maybe it might even be a bigger change than requiring someone to throw a yellow piece of fabric on a field while brains are being destroyed. But I'm not really holding my breath. I know I argued that it was a legal hit, but I wanted to clarify that I don't think it's a good thing that these kind of hits happen.
Like d-usa said above, the NFL’s concussion protocol is a joke.
Rant:
Spoiler:
I think what annoys me the most is helmets popping off on impact. In my industry, I sell protective helmets anywhere from $100 to 2K$. I’d probably be sued for negligence if I sold a helmet that just popped right off of a customers head. A helmet should not just slip off like some of the ones in the video. Thats a sign of a poorly fitted helmet and that arguably makes the helmet a detriment to protecting the brain, as the players head is probably bouncing around inside the helmet, thereby causing the brain to bounce inside the skull. A properly fitted helmet hugs the skull, reducing or even negating that bounce. It should be somewhat difficult to take on and off, most definitely not coming off due to an impact. Also, in the motorcycle industry, if you have one fall or crash, that helmet will lose its safety rating and be trashed (ideally). In the NFL, you got players using the same helmet throughout a game or practice(maybe both) and its getting stressed and losing it protective value pretty quickly. Maybe they replace them at Haltime (I hope) but I still feel like thats pushing it.
I don’t want to drop a hot take and say that the NFL will be dead in 10 years, but I truly think its heading for a collapse of some kind in the imminent future, mainly because of the awareness of the concussion issue. Here in Maryland, varsity football seasons were cancelled at two highschools(maybe more, I know of two for sure) and I hear reports of similiar things happening in other states and youth leagues. In my opinion, Soccer and NBA are America’s sports of the future, followed by MLB.
Yeah, the SB seemed to have an oddly high number of helmets popping off. That is deeply troubling as those are an essential protection device. I have also wondered about how often they are replaced. Most helmets have to be replaced after an impact. Yet football helmets stay in play after play. Seems very risky.
Also dilly dilly needs to die. It's a nonsense phrase hoisted by an ad company and lacks any sort of cleverness or wit. And bring back the Clydesdales!
