NFL Playoffs: Super Bowl LIII

[Red Wolf]

13 minutes ago, Dodgeryaqui8016 said:

I also noticed that the 80's 49ers were not hated like this Patriots dynasty.  

The Montana NIners also went to less than half as many Super Bowls as the Brady Pats and we didn't have the internet back then. It's just like when people talk about how nobody hated Michael Jordan. It's nothing but revisionist history. Michael Jordan was very much a hated sports figure for the same reason anybody who wins three-straight championships (twice!) would be. I remember people talking about he was soft because of the Jordan rules and how he was a selfish ballhog and so on and so forth.

[DnBronc]

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

We need to remember that the 03 and 04 Patriots were some stacked rosters (and they added Corey Dillon for 2004). They went 14-2 both years and had a stretch through there when they won 21 straight games. I think those teams would've won the Super Bowl anywhere.

 

The last 3 championships are rosters only Belichick could win a super bowl with. 

 

 

 

I don't think either one of those rosters was stacked.

 

On offense, they had no Pro Bowlers in 2003. Antowain Smith was the leading rusher with 642 yards. Deion Branch had only 57 catches as the leading receiver. And, Brady only had an 85.9 passer rating. The next year, Brady went back to the Pro Bowl, and they did have a big year out of Dillon, but David Givens was the leading receiver with 56 catches.

 

On defense, they did have four Pro Bowlers in 2003, but only two the next year. And, those really weren't the most athletic defenses, especially at LB (Bruschi, Vrabel, and McGinest were pretty slow).

[DnBronc]

1 hour ago, Red Wolf said:

The Montana NIners also went to less than half as many Super Bowls as the Brady Pats and we didn't have the internet back then. It's just like when people talk about how nobody hated Michael Jordan. It's nothing but revisionist history. Michael Jordan was very much a hated sports figure for the same reason anybody who wins three-straight championships (twice!) would be. I remember people talking about he was soft because of the Jordan rules and how he was a selfish ballhog and so on and so forth.

 

By the 90's, there was a group of fans on the internet who hated the Niners (49erhaters.com).

[bosrs1]

6 hours ago, Lights Out said:

The Packers and Spurs say otherwise. The narrative that people hate the Patriots because they're successful is crap. It's because everyone from the owner to the fans is unlikeable, and the success only fuels that.

 

As for all the talk about how sad the pre-dynasty era was for the Patriots - even back in that era, they still went to two Super Bowls. There are some teams that have never even played in one.

 

The Packers have won multiple Super Bowls recently? And the Spurs were quite hated when they went on their run. They're now 5 years removed from their last title so...

[Unocal]

If we're going to compare the Niners to the Pats, let me throw in another factor- division.

 

San Francisco did win a boatload of NFC West titles, but they didn't always run away and hide. The Rams pushed them at times and, at least through the Montana era, didn't always get swept. They oddly won more games at Candlestick than at Anaheim.

 

Atlanta was a division doormat more often than not, but every now and then (1983, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995) they would spring a surprise.

 

New Orleans also made things tough at times with their defense and were seen as a worthy foil.

 

Compare that to the AFC East. Forget the QB play- Brady isn't exactly going up against Kevin Greene or the Dome Patrol linebackers twice a year every year.

 

During the SF 1981-1998 era, the 49ers had to sweat out their division here and there. New England only a few times has had to sweat out division titles- 2001, 2003, 2004, 2010. Outside of that, they basically have won their division in July.

 

Since the 3x in 4 years run, that division has gone WAY downhill.

 

The BUF/MIA/NYJ gap was way bigger than the old ATL/LA/NO gap.

 

The 49ers actually did surrender their division a few times (1985 Rams, 1991 Saints, 1996 Panthers, 1998 Falcons). Brady has failed to win his division ONE TIME while playing the full season.

[Quillz]

6 hours ago, Dodgeryaqui8016 said:

I also noticed that the 80's 49ers were not hated like this Patriots dynasty.  

Remember back then the Internet wasn't really a thing. There probably was hate, but you were exposed to much less of it.

[Unocal]

Is the Patriots dynasty good or bad for football? Some will say bad, some will say good. Your takes?

[Dalcowboyfan92]

2 hours ago, SabresRule7361 said:

Is the Patriots dynasty good or bad for football? Some will say bad, some will say good. Your takes?

 

It's bad from the point of view of the casual fan. They probably don't get why one team has been so good, so successful for now over a decade and a half. They'll ask questions like why can't anyone stop them, to which the reply will be "Eli Manning" or "Philly Special".

 

It's also bad from the point of view of the fans of the other AFC teams. They're all basically fighting each other for the Silver medal. It's honestly very hard for any fan of any other team in that conference to get truly excited about the playoffs. You can't really get into watching the games because you know deep down, in the back of your mind, that Brady and Belichick are going to get off the mat, Tombstone your team into the mat and get the pin, win the game, and go on to the Super Bowl.

 

In the NFC, it's kind of the same thing. You have the teams squabbling amongst themselves, scraping and clawing, trying to advance to the Super Bowl. Again, probably for the Silver medal. In the end, it might end up being for naught. Seattle, Atlanta, and now Los Angeles are striking examples of this. Honestly, as a fan of an NFC team; why should I get my hopes up, only to see them crushed in the Big Game against the greatest dynasty the sports world has seen since the 60s Celtics, or the 50s Yankees? I feel it's a fool's errand.

 

We whine and bellyache because we can't stand the status quo; we want change. We want new winners, new champions. We got that somewhat with Philly last year. And should've had it with Atlanta in Super Bowl LI. But, the truly great teams win when everyone counts them out, when everyone's given up on them.

[bosrs1]

5 hours ago, SabresRule7361 said:

Is the Patriots dynasty good or bad for football? Some will say bad, some will say good. Your takes?

 

Its been terrible for the league, and I’m a Pats fan. 

[FiddySicks]

This whole era has been absolutey awful for the NFL, and the Patriots winning a lot is very low on the list of reasons why. The NFL is constantly making the wrong choice and pretty much trips over their dick every time they take a step.

 

Holding cities hostage for public funds to build stadiums, the recent Kaepernick thing and race relations as a whole, how they’ve handled replay and the refs in general, their overall apathy to domestic violence and crime among their players, and (the most egregious thing) the way they’ve swept the CTE findings under the rug and have poured money into false findings (which is not just a bad look, but is borderline criminal) are all WAY bigger issues. 

 

 

I’m to the point where I Hope this entire league crashes and burns, but it sure ain’t because the Pats won a lot. 

[Still MIGHTY]

44 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

I’m to the point where I Hope this entire league crashes and burns, but it sure ain’t because the Pats won a lot. 

 

Yeah, you've made that pretty clear.

[Sport]

Dynasties aren't inherently bad for a sport in the way that people argue that UConn is bad for women's basketball (I disagree in that case). I think the way the Pats have done it is bad for the sport. They're this soulless borg machine, where it doesn't matter who plays for them, where they ruthlessly cut players a year before they start to decline, where the only important thing is the factory, that these players are all replaceable plugs in a machine. The entire Patriots experience feels so joyless and mechanical. It works so well for them that it makes following the draft and roster management strategy, and for getting interested in fun players for your own team feel like a pointless exercise. 

 

 

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Dynasties aren't inherently bad for a sport in the way that people argue that UConn is bad for women's basketball (I disagree in that case). I think the way the Pats have done it is bad for the sport. They're this soulless borg machine, where it doesn't matter who plays for them, where they ruthlessly cut players a year before they start to decline, where the only important thing is the factory, that these players are all replaceable plugs in a machine. The entire Patriots experience feels so joyless and mechanical. It works so well for them that it makes following the draft and roster management strategy, and for getting interested in fun players for your own team feel like a pointless exercise. 

 

 

 

I mean it's the same thing in the NBA right now. Everyone else is playing for second (or in the west third) place. I mean I was just reading about the Kings making the move for Barnes because they're going to make a go for it... but they're not going for a title. They're going for a playoff birth. It's gotten so bad that's pretty much the best the other teams can hope for. And it sucks. If I weren't a Pats fan I'd feel the same about the NFL. The Pats have essentially owned the last decade. If you're an AFC fan in particular you've little to look forward to than watching your team lose to a pair of old men. 

[FiddySicks]

5 hours ago, Still MIGHTY said:

 

Yeah, you've made that pretty clear.

 

And I’ll continue to do so.

[Unocal]

12 hours ago, McCarthy said:

They're this soulless borg machine, where it doesn't matter who plays for them, where they ruthlessly cut players a year before they start to decline, where the only important thing is the factory, that these players are all replaceable plugs in a machine. The entire Patriots experience feels so joyless and mechanical. It works so well for them that it makes following the draft and roster management strategy, and for getting interested in fun players for your own team feel like a pointless exercise. 

 

 

Take Sony Michel- is he truly as good as his playoff numbers indicated or could, Lamar Miller/Alfred Blue have replicated those numbers?

[dont care]

5 hours ago, SabresRule7361 said:

Take Sony Michel- is he truly as good as his playoff numbers indicated or could, Lamar Miller/Alfred Blue have replicated those numbers?

Yes he is, he’s probably better actually, he was running through the league the whole year.

[Quillz]

16 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I mean it's the same thing in the NBA right now. Everyone else is playing for second (or in the west third) place. I mean I was just reading about the Kings making the move for Barnes because they're going to make a go for it... but they're not going for a title. They're going for a playoff birth. It's gotten so bad that's pretty much the best the other teams can hope for. And it sucks. If I weren't a Pats fan I'd feel the same about the NFL. The Pats have essentially owned the last decade. If you're an AFC fan in particular you've little to look forward to than watching your team lose to a pair of old men. 

I agree with this, to an extent. Had I been alive in the 1950s, I wonder if I would have even bothered to care about baseball if my team wasn't the Yankees, since you knew the World Series would be someone (usually the Dodgers) losing to the Yankees. And in the pre-free agency days, what hope did your team have to ever be good? It's like with my Rams... I knew they weren't going to win the Super Bowl, so for me, just seeing them in it was fun. But I can only imagine being a fan of an AFC team and knowing at some point they won't get past the Patriots. It sucks, but hey, that's sports. Nothing lasts forever, and at some point in the future, some other team will be winning a bunch of championships and the Patriots will just be another team. Kind of like the Bulls today.

[beachperroAZ]

21 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Dynasties aren't inherently bad for a sport in the way that people argue that UConn is bad for women's basketball (I disagree in that case). I think the way the Pats have done it is bad for the sport. They're this soulless borg machine, where it doesn't matter who plays for them, where they ruthlessly cut players a year before they start to decline, where the only important thing is the factory, that these players are all replaceable plugs in a machine. The entire Patriots experience feels so joyless and mechanical. It works so well for them that it makes following the draft and roster management strategy, and for getting interested in fun players for your own team feel like a pointless exercise. 

  

 

For this reason I am considering skipping out on the 2019 NFL season because of how sick and tired I am of the Patriots.  My teams are NFC (seahawks) & AFC (Dolphins).  It seems pointless to even bother until Brady and Belichek retire or start to decline badly.  

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, Quillz said:

I agree with this, to an extent. Had I been alive in the 1950s, I wonder if I would have even bothered to care about baseball if my team wasn't the Yankees, since you knew the World Series would be someone (usually the Dodgers) losing to the Yankees. And in the pre-free agency days, what hope did your team have to ever be good? It's like with my Rams... I knew they weren't going to win the Super Bowl, so for me, just seeing them in it was fun. But I can only imagine being a fan of an AFC team and knowing at some point they won't get past the Patriots. It sucks, but hey, that's sports. Nothing lasts forever, and at some point in the future, some other team will be winning a bunch of championships and the Patriots will just be another team. Kind of like the Bulls today.

 

You might have a good point. I mean think about what happened in the mid century. The Yankees from 1936 to 1956 won 13 World Series, and the other two NY teams won 2 more. New York got 15 of 20 titles. And by the mid 50's a slew of teams, 5 in 5 years, relocated in part due to poor performance at the box office (including the other two NY teams). Obviously correlation does not equal causation, and there were other factors also at play driving those relocations. But I'd never considered that the Yankee's prolonged success may have played a part in the first big relocation boom in MLB. 

[beachperroAZ]

On 2/6/2019 at 11:50 AM, Red Wolf said:

The Montana NIners also went to less than half as many Super Bowls as the Brady Pats and we didn't have the internet back then. It's just like when people talk about how nobody hated Michael Jordan. It's nothing but revisionist history. Michael Jordan was very much a hated sports figure for the same reason anybody who wins three-straight championships (twice!) would be. I remember people talking about he was soft because of the Jordan rules and how he was a selfish ballhog and so on and so forth.

Funny thing is I actually began to hate Jordan and the Bulls after they kept beating my Jazz when I was an NBA fan at the time.  The 80's 49ers also won with class.  They were just a likeable bunch of guys for the most part.  But maybe if there was internet people would have discovered more how hard Bill Walsh was on Montana to the point of wanting to trade him various times.  He even wanted to trade Montana to Denver for Elway after a sudden playoff loss.