NFC Championship - Los Angeles Rams vs. New Orleans Saints

[Do7]

Joe Flacco would have thrived in system. In NE it's not about the QB as much as it is the defense. Yes, the QB has to win a game every once in a while. But really, when you team defense averages giving up only 19 ppg for 20 years in a row, you will win a lot of those games.

Exactly my point. Btw nice to finally meet you Raptorman.

 

[rmontro]

1) I’ve always been of the opinion that Belichick without Brady would have still most likely have been in contention with more SB wins than Brady without Belichick would have had.

I've always been on that side of the argument, that NE's success has been more about Belichick than Brady. Brady has been a perfect field general for Belichick, but I think in many ways Brady has been a creation of Belichick, at least in part. Would he be so obsessive about his health and game preparation if not for Belichick's influence? I tend to doubt it.

As for Rodgers with NE, there's really no way of telling. We've all seen the stats over the years where the Packers defense has given up way more points that the Patriots have, including the playoffs. So you'd have to think that Rodgers would have won a lot of those games. But again, there's no way of knowing for sure. Maybe Brady and Belichick are just lightning in a bottle. But you'd have to think Rodgers would have had some significant success in NE. Maybe even more than Brady, who knows? Maybe Rodgers wouldn't have developed some of the habits he's been criticized for had he played under Belichick.

 

[Raptorman]

Exactly my point. Btw nice to finally meet you Raptorman.

Let's just say this. In the playoffs alone.
Brady is
.875, 21-3 ,when the other team is held to 22 points or less.
.533 8-7 when the other teams score 24 points or more.
He is also now 4-4 on the road in the playoffs.
At NE, he is 20-3.
Average opponents PPG in NE, 18.6
Average opponents PPG, including SB's outside NE, 25.3.

But yeah, keep telling me how great Brady is. Is he good? Yes. Is he the reason they have 5 rings? Only part of it.

 

[rmontro]

But yeah, keep telling me how great Brady is. Is he good? Yes. Is he the reason they have 5 rings? Only part of it.

You're absolutely right. But none of those things make Rodgers the GOAT.
They only show that Brady has been put in a position to succeed, and he has.

 

[Do7]

Let's just say this. In the playoffs alone.
Brady is
.875, 21-3 ,when the other team is held to 22 points or less.
.533 8-7 when the other teams score 24 points or more.
He is also now 4-4 on the road in the playoffs.
At NE, he is 20-3.
Average opponents PPG in NE, 18.6
Average opponents PPG, including SB's outside NE, 25.3.

But yeah, keep telling me how great Brady is. Is he good? Yes. Is he the reason they have 5 rings? Only part of it.

Wait you do know that I share your sentiments in regards to all of this right?

 

[Raptorman]

Wait you do know that I share your sentiments in regards to all of this right?

I got that. Just providing more facts for the fire.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Tripe. Pure tripe. Some people like to feign "enlightenment" by praising the opposition.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I've rarely felt a deep rooted haterd for another thing as much as the OT format. Like you can give toss and declare them the winner. No need to play at all. Whoever wins the toss wins the match at least 90% of the time. What a lame rule in a good sport.

Calling CaptWIMM

Actually, since the NFL changed the format back in 2012 teams receiving the ball first are 53-51-7 (.509) in overtime.

 

[Half Empty]

So, there!

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Its a lot easier to be really good when you play the Dolphins, Jets, and Bills twice every year. All three organizations being nothing short of dumpster fires in the whole Brady era (Jets had one good year). The Bears and Packers have both visited SBs in the last decade or so. And the Vikings and Bears now are good. Hell even the lions can show up once in awhile. Smoked us twice. So I just really really have a hard time believing that the Pats runs would be as easy if they are in a different division. Switch the Pats with Tampa even and have em play the Saints, Panthers, and Falcons twice. I promise you, they do NOT sweep the division

 

[Do7]

Its a lot easier to be really good when you play the Dolphins, Jets, and Bills twice every year. All three organizations being nothing short of dumpster fires in the whole Brady era (Jets had one good year). The Bears and Packers have both visited SBs in the last decade or so. And the Vikings and Bears now are good. Hell even the lions can show up once in awhile. Smoked us twice. So I just really really have a hard time believing that the Pats runs would be as easy if they are in a different division. Switch the Pats with Tampa even and have em play the Saints, Panthers, and Falcons twice. I promise you, they do NOT sweep the division

That's EXACTLY what I said. I can't take anyone seriously when they try to say that the AFC East is a not a weak division

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

That's EXACTLY what I said. I can't take anyone seriously when they try to say that the AFC East is a not a weak division

The ONLY comeback I hear for the weak AFC East argument is, "Well they do well in the playoffs and beat other teams in the playoffs blah blah blah." You would beat teams too if you were virtually guaranteed a first round bye every year AND were more rested from smashing the other cupcakes in your division for 6 games of the year. Imagine having to actually grind during the regular season against the vikings and bears, or the saints and panthers. Or whomever. You are a little more tired come playoff time if you have to battle just to get there

 

[Do7]

The ONLY comeback I hear for the weak AFC East argument is, "Well they do well in the playoffs and beat other teams in the playoffs blah blah blah." You would beat teams too if you were virtually guaranteed a first round bye every year AND were more rested from smashing the other cupcakes in your division for 6 games of the year. Imagine having to actually grind during the regular season against the vikings and bears, or the saints and panthers. Or whomever. You are a little more tired come playoff time if you have to battle just to get there

If you go back a page or two you'll find someone trying to make a case saying that the AFC East isn't weak, and that Brady would've done better with this Packers squad in comparison to Rodgers and would've gotten us another ring, where Rodgers, being in a more QB friendly system wouldn't have thrived as well as Brady b/c he would've clashed with Belichick.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

If you go back a page or two you'll find someone trying to make a case saying that the AFC East isn't weak, and that Brady would've done better with this Packers squad in comparison to Rodgers and would've gotten us another ring, where Rodgers, being in a more QB friendly system wouldn't have thrived as well as Brady b/c he would've clashed with Belichick.

Sounds like Colin Cowherd created an account on this forum. Thats nonsense though. I will admit even given the circumstances, I think I will say complete body of work, I'll concede that Brady is the GOAT. But Rodgers isnt done yet. So we shall see. But to try and argue that the AFC East is not weak is simply ignorant and biased. Hell this crappy Packer team SMASHED the Dolphins, beat the Jets on the road, and took the current AFC SB representative to the brink until they pulled away in the 4th ON THE ROAD

 

[rmontro]

You would beat teams too if you were virtually guaranteed a first round bye every year AND were more rested from smashing the other cupcakes in your division for 6 games of the year.

Being more rested is a good point, plus I'm sure those virtually guaranteed wins do a lot toward building confidence and building the habit of winning.

As for Rodgers playing for Belichick, there's really no way to tell because of the chemistry factor. You have to think they would have some success, but as much as Brady and Belichick? No way to tell. On the other hand, maybe Rodgers would have 10 rings right now in Brady's position! And one more key question: Does Belichick get saddled with having TT as a GM?

 

[Quientus]

If you go back a page or two you'll find someone trying to make a case saying that the AFC East isn't weak, and that Brady would've done better with this Packers squad in comparison to Rodgers and would've gotten us another ring, where Rodgers, being in a more QB friendly system wouldn't have thrived as well as Brady b/c he would've clashed with Belichick.

The argument ppl are using as an excuse; The Patriots and Brady are only succesful because they play in “A weak division” is naive and borderline ignorant ... NO Stats, whatsoever supports that claim, that it is because of the AFC East ... Just look at the Colts during Mannings tenure ... That was a weak division and look How Well the Colts did in the play offs ...

I’m Sorry, but it seems to me, you are so High on the Kool-aid, you cant even think straight when discussing Football ...

To use a phrase by someoneelse on These boards; Show me the stats that support your claim ...

 

[Do7]

The argument ppl are using as an excuse; The Patriots and Brady are only succesful because they play in “A weak division” is naive and borderline ignorant ... NO Stats, whatsoever supports that claim, that it is because of the AFC East ... Just look at the Colts during Mannings tenure ... That was a weak division and look How Well the Colts did in the play offs ...

I’m Sorry, but it seems to me, you are so High on the Kool-aid, you cant even think straight when discussing Football ...

I figured it would be only be a matter of time until you showed up.

You brought up these "stats" and in comparison to The NFCN, and yet I brought up the fact that with our division has had two teams represent the playoffs more consistently than that of the AFC East. That alone makes your stats moot. And here you again are denying that playing against weak division opponents, doesn't help in get HFA in the playoffs. It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Everyone knows the AFC East is a weak division and the only reason those "Stats" of yours says otherwise is b/c, of how pitiful the AFC has been over the years in comparison to the NFC, especially considering where a division could win with only 9 victories or possibly fewer on occasions. But your "stats" don't tell you that do they pumpkin?

Can't deny that point you said about Manning and the AFC South, though more times than not he ended up playing in Foxborough at some point more than The Patriots coming to play against him. Either that or he got bounced out early b/c his defense failed him typically, like another QB that suffers from the same problem usually in the postseason.

Btw I noticed how you yet again decide to gloss over my question in regards to them having the same amount of success playing opponents twice a year in a tougher division within the NFC rather than just playing them once.

I find it comical you're saying I'm the one that's high on the Kool-Aid, but in all honesty it doesn't surprise me at the very least. I could say the same regarding you, but I won't.

Just to be clear, I hold no hostility towards you dude. You're rightfully entitled to your opinion, even if we don't see eye to eye. Simply b/c I don't share your POV doesn't mean I'm not thinking straight. And considering there have been two people on here that have shared and buffered my points, that speaks for itself that what I've said has some validity, as opposed to yours.

 

[Quientus]

I figured it would be only be a matter of time until you showed up.

You brought up these "stats" and in comparison to The NFCN, and yet I brought up the fact that with our division has had two teams represent the playoffs more consistently than that of the AFC East. That alone makes your stats moot. And here you again are denying that playing against weak division opponents, doesn't help in get HFA in the playoffs. It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Everyone knows the AFC East is a weak division and the only reason those "Stats" of yours says otherwise is b/c, of how pitiful the AFC has been over the years in comparison to the NFC, especially considering where a division could win with only 9 victories or possibly fewer on occasions. But your "stats" don't tell you that do they pumpkin?

Btw I noticed how you yet again decide to gloss over my question in regards to them having the same amount of success playing opponents twice a year in a tougher division within the NFC rather than just playing them once.

I find it comical you're saying I'm the one that's high on the Kool-Aid, but in all honesty it doesn't surprise me at the very least. I could say the same regarding you, but I won't.

Just to be clear, I hold no hostility towards you dude. You're rightfully entitled to your opinion, even if we don't see eye to eye. Simply b/c I don't share your POV doesn't mean I'm not thinking straight.

Again, I ask ... were are the stats you claim that supports that the AFC East is as weak a division - as you and some other claim it to be ??? - If that was the reason for the Patriots succes, you would think that The Pats would have failed like the Colts, yet they dont ... In fact all stats interdivision, interconference shows the AFC East to be in the middle ... Even when you remove the each division winner from the statsheet ...

Every stat show that the Pats (Most likely) would have been equally succesful, Regardless of which division they were put in ... Maybe not with 12-4, 13-3 records, however, more likely than not, it wouldn’t change their succes’s ...

As I know you seldom bother to look up stats, here’s another run-Down for you ...;

https://boxden.com/showthread.php?t=2676430

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Who is that guy? Is he a Packer fan or a troll? Do7 you are on your own on this one sir lol Its Friday and I am just gonna pretend like I did not read that post lol

 

[Do7]

Who is that guy? Is he a Packer fan or a troll? Do7 you are on your own on this one sir lol Its Friday and I am just gonna pretend like I did not read that post lol

Oh no, I wouldn't call him a troll, as I do share some of his sentiments, just not as extreme as he does. Let's just call him for all intents and purposes my "arch-nemesis" on here dude. He's not a bad dude. It's all in good fun though. Very intelligent and it's fun having debates with him.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Oh no, I wouldn't call him a troll, as I do share some of his sentiments, just not as extreme as he does. Let's just call him for all intents and purposes my "arch-nemesis" on here dude. He's not a bad dude. It's all in good fun though. Very intelligent and it's fun having debates with him.

Good stuff! Im still kinda newer so dont know everyone. Once upon a time around the time we played the Pats in the regular season, there was some guy who really was trolling. So now I just wanna make sure I know who is for real

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Again, I ask ... were are the stats you claim that supports that the AFC East is as weak a division - as you and some other claim it to be ??? - If that was the reason for the Patriots succes, you would think that The Pats would have failed like the Colts, yet they dont ... In fact all stats interdivision, interconference shows the AFC East to be in the middle ... Even when you remove the each division winner from the statsheet ...

Every stat show that the Pats (Most likely) would have been equally succesful, Regardless of which division they were put in ... Maybe not with 12-4, 13-3 records, however, more likely than not, it wouldn’t change their succes’s ...

As I know you seldom bother to look up stats, here’s another run-Down for you ...;

https://boxden.com/showthread.php?t=2676430

Sorry I implied you may have been a troll. Happy Friday, Cheers!

 

[Stanger37]

Being more rested is a good point, plus I'm sure those virtually guaranteed wins do a lot toward building confidence and building the habit of winning.

As for Rodgers playing for Belichick, there's really no way to tell because of the chemistry factor. You have to think they would have some success, but as much as Brady and Belichick? No way to tell. On the other hand, maybe Rodgers would have 10 rings right now in Brady's position! And one more key question: Does Belichick get saddled with having TT as a GM?

I do have Brady in the GOAT #1 spot and it will be hard for someone to remove him from that. I also have Belichick in the GOAT #1 spot for coaches. There are so many hypothetical situations with Belichick/Rodgers and you have done a good job stating that. Brady and Belichick both embrace the daily, weekly, monthly, yearly grind that it takes to continue on being the best. Did they help instill that to each other? I think so. Not everyone in the league is content with giving up everything they have to reach the pinnacle and I think people refuse to give that credit to them. I also think Brady and Rodgers have two different styles of WANTING to play. Brady doesn't have a problem slowly dissecting a defense where as Rodgers seems to want the big chunk yardage. I don't know if that's Belichick, Brady, McCarthy, or Rodgers. Would Rodgers respect Belichick for 19 years? Would he have a feud with him 18 years in and put it off to the side to go back to business? I don't know but I do not fault either of them for being on the team together as the other 31 teams had a chance to land Brady multiple times.

Also, I partially credit their success to leaving the AFC East in shambles for the last 20 years. Do those teams draft defense to slow them down? Or offense to keep up with them? Do they splash in free agency? Do they try to hire a big name coach? If it was as easy as the Patriots make it look, every team would do it. Teams would love to go from Favre to Rodgers, Packers had a huge advantage that it happened. No one holds that against them. The Bears have been a mess for the most part of the last 20 years, Detroit had 8 wins in 3 years, Minnesota has been average at best. I'd be willing to bet the worst teams in the AFC East were overall better than the NFC North's worst teams over the last 20 years. Divisional games are never easy no matter what. Every division fluctuates up and down. Every team goes into the same draft every year. Yet people fault the Patriots for continuously being better than the rest of their division.

 

[rmontro]

Again, I ask ... were are the stats you claim that supports that the AFC East is as weak a division - as you and some other claim it to be ??? - If that was the reason for the Patriots succes, you would think that The Pats would have failed like the Colts, yet they dont.

I wouldn't say the AFC East is THE reason for the Pats success, but it's a factor. At the very least it doesn't hurt them any. But obviously if the Pats weren't any good, they wouldn't be able to capitalize on it, and they wouldn't have the Super Bowl Championships to go with it.

Their relatively weak division gives them an opportunity, and they exploit it to the fullest. If they weren't a good team, they wouldn't be able to do that. It's a bit of luck to go along with their hard work and skill.

 

[Mondio]

I wouldn't say the AFC East is THE reason for the Pats success, but it's a factor. At the very least it doesn't hurt them any. But obviously if the Pats weren't any good, they wouldn't be able to capitalize on it, and they wouldn't have the Super Bowl Championships to go with it.

Their relatively weak division gives them an opportunity, and they exploit it to the fullest. If they weren't a good team, they wouldn't be able to do that. It's a bit of luck to go along with their hard work and skill.

I used to think their division was more important than it probably is/was. But you said it, no team takes advantage of opportunity like the Patriots have consistently for a long time.