2017 NFL Season: Then there were Two

[Lee Noire]

1 hour ago, DG_Now said:

I was going to make that point earlier today. The Cowboys dominated for most of the early 90s, but Emmitt Smith was also really really fun. Jimmy Johnson seemed to enjoy coaching. Troy Aikman had a sweet mullet. Michael Irvin did all that cocaine.

 

The Pats give former Bills Super Bowl rings and air commercials about how happy Tom Brady is to ditch his kids for football. No one will miss them over and outside of their losses to the Giants, no one will remember their games.

Yeah it’s not that the Pats win a lot but the stench of controversy constantly around them, and some pretty unlikeable personalities.

 

We all want parity and dynasties to crumble after they’ve had their fun, but it’s hard to even appreciate the run because of the people involved. Couldn’t wait for someone to knock the Bulls off, but I appreciated what they did. The Pats? Nah fam.

[JerseyJimmy]

oh and let's not forget

 

MOD EDIT: No politics.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

57 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

Let's not pretend people didn't hate the Bulls. I remember lots of people rooting for the Utah Jazz of all teams just because they wanted somebody to beat the Bulls. Any team that wins that much is going to be hated. It's only with time that people step back and appreciate the dynasties that pissed them off for years.

 

We also didn't have Twitter or message boards back then, so every Bulls win wasn't met with "the Bulls again? Guess I'm not watching the Finals" or "Why have you forsaken us, oh Lord!?"

 

I'm sure that's true, but there really is no comparison for Michael Jordan. He was not only the greatest ever in his sport, but almost universally beloved (or at least appreciated) throughout the world.

 

By the every nature of the NFL, no single player can really have that level of impact. Not even Tom Brady, who even me as a hater will admit is the greatest QB ever.

[Brass]

7 hours ago, Jimmy Lethal said:

oh and let's not forget

 

MOD EDIT: No politics.

 

MOD EDIT: I mean, you're right, but there are better ways to put it.

[FiddySicks]

It's still true, though. 

[BBTV]

Didn’t people praise the boring ass spurs for their fundamentals and winning the right way? 

[JerseyJimmy]

3 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Didn’t people praise the boring ass spurs for their fundamentals and winning the right way? 

 

I don't know how the Spurs manage to be so unhateable after all these years, either. Maybe it's Pop.

[UnclearInitial]

The Spurs have been perpetually good to great but rarely dominant, they’ve never won back to back titles, and only appeared in the Finals back to back once. The Lakers won as many as they did from 1999-2014 but in two dominant stretches, it’s hard to pinpoint a stretch where the Spurs were just so dominant that everyone assumed they would win before the season even started.

 

Plus being the only team in a small market  makes them a lot harder to hate, they’ve always gotten limited media exposure and fans of teams that might be rivals to other Boston teams can’t  overlap their antagonism  like they do for the Patriots

[Sport]

1 hour ago, anythinglogos said:

The Spurs have been perpetually good to great but rarely dominant

 

I must disagree

 

 

That's pretty dominant. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Pop is a lovable curmudgeon who frequently speaks up for the Right Thing.

 

Belicihik is who he is. It's not just the team on the field that people don't like. There are plenty of other circumstances that make the Patriots so uniquely hateable.

[Cosmic]

The Ringer doesn't understand that the only exciting, unexpected result is for the Patriots to actually lose. Seeing Tom Brady march down the field with a chance to win the game is the most anticlimactic thing ever.

[BBTV]

If the eagles win this game, it might be the first time we ever see a GM carried off the field. To be here despite losing all pros and pro bowlers and HOF players during the season says so much about their depth. 

 

The players they have on IR would make the playoffs if they were a team. 

[OnWis97]

I'd think Pop (who, by the way, is probably my favorite person in sports) would be a polarizing figure, particularly in recent years.

 

I'm not quite sure why the Patriots are more hated than the Spurs.  Their runs are very similar in that they are over a long period of time and they seem to be peerless in their ability to find diamonds in the rough and plug guys in.  A number of factors I can think of:

• The Spurs were always competitive (obviously) but you almost never had a sense that they were clearly going to win.  Sometimes with New England it seems inevitable.
• How many people remember any instances in which a win just seemingly feel into San Antonio's lap?  I know there was one member here who hated the Spurs because of some official's call that may have helped them, but the Tuck Rule game made New England's first Super Bowl possible.  The Falcons flat out folded and handed them that last Super Bowl.  And even though the NBA has a worse reputation when it comes to preferential treatment from officials, calls sometimes just seem to go New England's way and the perception (true or not) is that San Antonio never got that treatment the Lakers used to get.
• Football.  We care more about it.
• Real America vs. Mass-holes.  "Boston Fan" is looked upon as obnoxious.  Does anyone have an opinion on "San Antonio Fan?"
• The Spurs never won two in a row.  They were only in two in a row once.
• While we are as bad at "counting rings" in assessing NBA players as we are with NFL QBs, Tim Duncan never got the reputation boost from his rings that Brady did.  This is likely because Brady has the most, among QBs, while plenty of people have as many rings as Duncan.
• Even though the Spurs have played the roster game almost as well as New England (finding late-round gems and underrated free agents), New England's run is probably viewed as a bit more soulless.  By that I mean, dumping big contracts in favor of small ones and generally being able to be Brady and whatever no-names they can find.
• The Spurs are the only game in town.  The Bruins, Celtics, and Red Sox have all won in somewhat recent memory.

I acutally don't think deflategate and the video taping thing are part of it.  In fact, I think our reaction to those things are caused by hate we already had.

[Brass]

14 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I'd think Pop (who, by the way, is probably my favorite person in sports) would be a polarizing figure, particularly in recent years.

 

I'm not quite sure why the Patriots are more hated than the Spurs.  Their runs are very similar in that they are over a long period of time and they seem to be peerless in their ability to find diamonds in the rough and plug guys in.  A number of factors I can think of:

• The Spurs were always competitive (obviously) but you almost never had a sense that they were clearly going to win.  Sometimes with New England it seems inevitable.
• How many people remember any instances in which a win just seemingly feel into San Antonio's lap?  I know there was one member here who hated the Spurs because of some official's call that may have helped them, but the Tuck Rule game made New England's first Super Bowl possible.  The Falcons flat out folded and handed them that last Super Bowl.  And even though the NBA has a worse reputation when it comes to preferential treatment from officials, calls sometimes just seem to go New England's way and the perception (true or not) is that San Antonio never got that treatment the Lakers used to get.
• Football.  We care more about it.
• Real America vs. Mass-holes.  "Boston Fan" is looked upon as obnoxious.  Does anyone have an opinion on "San Antonio Fan?"
• The Spurs never won two in a row.  They were only in two in a row once.
• While we are as bad at "counting rings" in assessing NBA players as we are with NFL QBs, Tim Duncan never got the reputation boost from his rings that Brady did.  This is likely because Brady has the most, among QBs, while plenty of people have as many rings as Duncan.
• Even though the Spurs have played the roster game almost as well as New England (finding late-round gems and underrated free agents), New England's run is probably viewed as a bit more soulless.  By that I mean, dumping big contracts in favor of small ones and generally being able to be Brady and whatever no-names they can find.
• The Spurs are the only game in town.  The Bruins, Celtics, and Red Sox have all won in somewhat recent memory.

I acutally don't think deflategate and the video taping thing are part of it.  In fact, I think our reaction to those things are caused by hate we already had.

 

While I generally disagree with a few points, this is a well-thought of analysis.

[UnclearInitial]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

 

I must disagree

 

 

That's pretty dominant. 

Well, that's the perpetually being good to great. But in the same era the Lakers have both repeated and threepeated, the Heat have gone to four straight finals, LeBron has gone to seven straight, we've got three straight Warriors-Cavs finals.  They only managed to get to back to back finals once, and so have the Pistons and Nets. They've just never had that season where it's almost a foregone conclusion who's going to win before the season even starts. There's not one Spurs season I can think of that is cited when the best teams ever conversation comes up.

[Sport]

If Brady actually played poorly or made a big mistake then that would be exciting. The last time that happened in a big spot in my recollection was the AFC Championship game they lost at Denver. The comeback against the Jags wasn't exciting because it was business as usual for them and so predictable. Did anyone feel like Jacksonville had that in the bag at any point? I didn't.

 

I shall now power-rank my experience with Patriots Super Bowls in terms of excitement:

1. Giants I - The first super bowl they lost to the Giants was probably the most exciting they've played for obvious reasons and they actually lost a close game with what was probably their best team. The Tyree catch is an all-time Super Bowl moment. For all their success at least we never have to deal with an undefeated super bowl winning Patriots team. That's a silverlinings playbook. 

2. Rams - The first Super Bowl was cool because they weren't THE PATRIOTS yet and the Rams were such huge favorites and recent enough champions that I didn't feel bad for them. Upsets are always fun. I was rooting for the Patriots in this game hard. 

3. The Seahawks stepped on their own dicks. This may have been the best game start to finish out of them all. 

4. The falcons stepped on their own dicks. Slow motion trainwreck. I didn't find it exciting because once it got to a couple possession lead I knew the ending. You can see the body language of the falcons players and coaches. I didn't even watch the overtime. 

5. Panthers played above their heads, but it never felt like that game was in doubt even though it was close.

6. Same for the Eagles game the following year.

7. Giants II is in the discussion for one of the 20 worst Super Bowls. It was close, it came down to a hail mary, and the Giants had some big plays, but it was the rematch nobody outside of Massachusetts asked for. The thing I remember most about that game was standing in the kitchen of the house of the party I was at and talking to a girl who is now my wife. 

8. Packers - I really wanted Bledsoe and the Patriots to win because they had Terry Glenn and the kind of uniforms that really appealed to 9 year old me. 

9. Bears - wasn't alive for that one, but the score tells the story. 

 

not looking forward to the Eagles keeping it close, if not holding a late lead, and then making a critical mistake or overthought coaching decision to let the Patriots back in the game.

[BBTV]

In terms of not hating Duncan because lots of guys have as many rings, It’s way easier to win lots of titles in the nba. Careers are longer, and it only takes one or two true star players on a team to be consistently great. NFL is possibly the hardest sport for a player to win multiple titles in, due to shortness of careers, reliance on so many other players, mid-season injuries, the one-and-done aspect of the playoffs (opposed to 7 game series), etc. 

 

in terms lf wining titles, from easiest to hardest: 

NBA

NHL*

MLB

NFL

 

*it could be argued that there’s been a lot of low seeds that have knocked off good teams due to hot goalies which makes it hard to win titles in hockey. More fluky / lucky things happen. 

 

[Lights Out]

It's pretty obvious why the Spurs aren't hated. Their fans aren't obnoxious. Their players aren't obnoxious. Their local media isn't obnoxious. The national media's coverage of them isn't obnoxious. And most importantly, they didn't hurt the integrity of their sport with two major cheating scandals.

[Lee Noire]

13 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

It's pretty obvious why the Spurs aren't hated. Their fans aren't obnoxious. Their players aren't obnoxious. Their local media isn't obnoxious. The national media's coverage of them isn't obnoxious. And most importantly, they didn't hurt the integrity of their sport with two major cheating scandals.

The only thing they might’ve had was Pop and his reporter trolling (perceived by some as being an a-hole), but it turns out he’s woke AF. Can’t hate that man either.

[Lights Out]

4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Didn’t people praise the boring ass spurs for their fundamentals and winning the right way? 

The Spurs have never been anywhere near as boring to watch as the Patriots. I could maybe understand people being bored by Duncan (although I personally always enjoyed watching him play), but Manu in his prime was one of the most creative and unpredictable players we've ever seen. Prime D-Rob was electric. Kawhi, when healthy, is must-see TV. The Beautiful Game system with all the ball movement was appointment viewing.

 

Meanwhile, with Brady, it's been 16 years of dinking and dunking with a few deep balls thrown specifically to draw PI flags. It works, but it's also dreadfully boring. Just in Brady's own era alone, there's no way I'd rather watch him than Favre, Kurt Warner, prime Vick, McNair, Rodgers, Big Ben, Brees, Rivers, Wentz, etc. Most of those guys aren't on Brady's level as a player, but they were/are a hell of a lot more entertaining.