Least Original Contrarian Takes

[IceCap]

4 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

He then won in Tampa Bay, the most accursed football franchise outside the rust belt.

This can't be overstated. I had no idea just how much of a punchline this team was until I moved here. I was going into my second Bucs season as a Tampa resident and everyone was hyped because it was supposed to be Jameis Winston's breakout year. And I was excited to be in a NFL market with a team people were expecting great stuff from. And that team ended up ing the bed. I voiced my bemusement that a team that had those expectations had such an underwhelming season and one of my friends just said "what do you expect from the Bucs?" 

 

And then when the Bucs won the Super Bowl last year I heard "Tom Brady must really be great because he came in and won in year one with this team." 

 

There is a real sense of futility and defeatism in Tampa when it comes to the Bucs that I simply wasn't prepared for when moving here.

Most teams with one title cherish it (or deify it, as in the Bears' case). Ask a Bucs fan prior to last season about their Super Bowl win in 2002 and the sentiment was almost universal. "Dumb luck." "A broken clock's right twice a day." "Mathematical inevitability."

Everyone treated the team's lone Super Bowl not as the height of the team's history but as a joke about their own futility. 

 

The team that won last year swapped Winston out for Brady. The team that went forward was the team that played for Winston, reinforced with a few key pieces that the Bucs were able to sign because those players wanted to play with Tom Brady. 

"Culture change" gets overused a lot, but that's 100% what I saw with Tom Brady. Friends of mine who had followed this team their whole lives were in awe of the fact that they had a QB who was that good, and who elevated everyone around him by being that good. It was surreal to see fans react that way. 

 

And this wasn't even peak Brady. This was "twilight of his career" Brady. 

 

5 hours ago, DnBronc said:

Brady's defenses have forced a lot of turnovers in the seven playoff runs where Brady won a ring

There have been plenty of good defences. The Bucs' defence in 2002 was low-key one of the best ever. They only won one Super Bowl because Brad Johnson wasn't the GOAT. The Bears' defence in the 80s is legendary. They only won one because Jim McMahon isn't the GOAT. The Ravens in the 2000s had probably the greatest defence of all time. They only won one Super Bowl because neither Trent Dilfer or Elvis Grbac were the GOAT. 

 

Getting the point yet? There have been world beater defences- better than any defence Tom Brady has had- that only managed to win one title, because they didn't have someone better under centre. Tom Brady has won seven Super Bowls with three different teams. That goes beyond "carried by his defence." The dude's the GOAT.

 

Get over your Broncos bias. 

 

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

Gotta throw it on the pile, the least original contrarian take in hockey is that the greatest player ever is actually BAWBBY FACKIN' AWWWWWWR

Oh G-d. My dad insists on this to this day. I think it's entirely because he accidentally ended up sharing a sandwich with him once at a bar in Toronto. 

[Kramerica Industries]

5 hours ago, IceCap said:

There is a real sense of futility and defeatism in Tampa when it comes to the Bucs that I simply wasn't prepared for when moving here.

 

You only need to look at the first table on this page. The Bucs all-time regular season win percentage - even after 2020 - is .393. The 31st overall team? The Jags, with a .425 win percentage. Literally .32 difference between #31 and #32. The Bucs could've won 23 more games across their history - 1.5 seasons worth of games - and still be in 32nd place. The Jags are closer to 25th placed Detroit (.456) than they are to the 32nd placed Bucs. It's a staggering gap. They've played 45 NFL seasons, and only finished .500 or better 14 times, and six of those happened between 1997-'02 so only eight times across the other 39 seasons outside of that literally one era of sustained success in their entire history.

 

So it makes sense. That the Bucs have two Super Bowls in their history with those statistics makes zero sense. The 21st-31st ranked teams in all-time regular season win percentage have combined for two Super Bowls across who knows how many combined seasons. They have the same number of championships as the #3 ranked Ravens (.564 W%). #6 Vikings and their .545 win percentage? Zero Super Bowls. 

 

Whenever the Tom Brady era ends, I have no idea what to expect. 1997-'02 clearly showed that things could easily slide backwards to where they were in the '80s and early '90s very easily even after a long-ish period of success. After Brady and Arians retire? 

[DnBronc]

On 9/4/2021 at 3:11 PM, IceCap said:

There have been plenty of good defences. The Bucs' defence in 2002 was low-key one of the best ever. They only won one Super Bowl because Brad Johnson wasn't the GOAT. The Bears' defence in the 80s is legendary. They only won one because Jim McMahon isn't the GOAT. The Ravens in the 2000s had probably the greatest defence of all time. They only won one Super Bowl because neither Trent Dilfer or Elvis Grbac were the GOAT. 

 

Getting the point yet? There have been world beater defences- better than any defence Tom Brady has had- that only managed to win one title, because they didn't have someone better under centre. Tom Brady has won seven Super Bowls with three different teams. That goes beyond "carried by his defence." The dude's the GOAT.

 

Get over your Broncos bias. 

 

1. Brady has won with two different teams (NE & TB). So did Peyton Manning, while we are at it.

 

2. McMahon wasn't healthy during the 1984 and 1986 playoffs. In 87, he only played in seven games. Plus, the Bears weren't as good of a team after the strike ended and the veterans came back. Before the strike hit, they pounded the defending SB champ Giants and the lowly Bucs. After the strike, they almost lost to the Bucs, Chiefs, and Packers, were blown out in San Fran, and only beat a 5-9 Raider team 6-3 to close out the season. As for Dilfer, he didn't get a chance to defend his title.

 

3. There being plenty of good defenses doesn't change the fact that Brady was riding his defenses to his first three SB wins. Those defenses forced 25 turnovers in nine playoff wins in 2001, 03, and 04.

 

Quote

 

The QB is the most important position in the game. As a Broncos fan you should know that (all hail my lord and savior, John Elway). Brady won with a good defense in New England. He then won with a dominant offense in New England. He then won in Tampa Bay, the most accursed football franchise outside the rust belt. He's one of the very best to ever play the position. That's just not really debatable anymore.

 

Back to the topic at hand, complaining about somebody being "clutch" or not sure is a cliche.

 

 

He didn't win a SB with a dominant offense in New England. He lost to Eli Manning twice with offenses that scored over 500 points in those seasons (they scored just 14 and 17 points in those SB's, respectively). He also lost to a 9-7 team in the SB (only QB to do that. Brady worshipers gloss over that, however).

 

Also, there is the matter of Spygate, and how much that helped him in New England. That's another topic that Brady lovers don't want to deal with.

 

People think that Brady is the best because of the lowest common denominator garbage that the media puts out (QB's with the most rings are the best). That crap started with Joe Montana, and has continued under Brady. It doesn't matter how his team performs, they get all the credit. That is wrong.

 

 

[IceCap]

6 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

1. Brady has won with two different teams (NE & TB). So did Peyton Manning, while we are at it.

He won in two different eras with New England. His first set of three with New England were with an almost entirely different team compared to the New England team he won his second set of three with. Practically speaking Tom Brady has won seven Super Bowls with three different rosters of players.

 

 

7 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

People think that Brady is the best because of the lowest common denominator garbage that the media puts out (QB's with the most rings are the best). That crap started with Joe Montana, and has continued under Brady. It doesn't matter how his team performs, they get all the credit. That is wrong

You don't like Montana either? Ok. Confirms it. You're just a bitter Broncos fan.

[The_Admiral]

If only they had called it the goddamn fumble it was.

[dont care]

52 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

 

1. Brady has won with two different teams (NE & TB). So did Peyton Manning, while we are at it.

 

2. McMahon wasn't healthy during the 1984 and 1986 playoffs. In 87, he only played in seven games. Plus, the Bears weren't as good of a team after the strike ended and the veterans came back. Before the strike hit, they pounded the defending SB champ Giants and the lowly Bucs. After the strike, they almost lost to the Bucs, Chiefs, and Packers, were blown out in San Fran, and only beat a 5-9 Raider team 6-3 to close out the season. As for Dilfer, he didn't get a chance to defend his title.

 

3. There being plenty of good defenses doesn't change the fact that Brady was riding his defenses to his first three SB wins. Those defenses forced 25 turnovers in nine playoff wins in 2001, 03, and 04.

 

 

He didn't win a SB with a dominant offense in New England. He lost to Eli Manning twice with offenses that scored over 500 points in those seasons (they scored just 14 and 17 points in those SB's, respectively). He also lost to a 9-7 team in the SB (only QB to do that. Brady worshipers gloss over that, however).

 

Also, there is the matter of Spygate, and how much that helped him in New England. That's another topic that Brady lovers don't want to deal with.

 

People think that Brady is the best because of the lowest common denominator garbage that the media puts out (QB's with the most rings are the best). That crap started with Joe Montana, and has continued under Brady. It doesn't matter how his team performs, they get all the credit. That is wrong.

 

 

I feel like I’m witnessing a Charlie from “always sunny” level of mental breakdown hear. Dude you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. You continue with the same sorry ass excuses, and it just doesn’t work. Brady has been the most dominant QB on the most dominant teams for over 2 decades now. That is why he is the goat end of discussion. No one will take that title from him while we are alive, and no one in history or currently playing has any sort of argument for why they are. He is top 3 in every single stat that matters, and has the most post season success that there ever was. That doesn’t even include his vast amount of records he holds that some won’t ever even be touched if not for the inevitable increase in games.

[DoctorWhom]

I know I'm bias, but what the hell more does Brady have to do to convince people? 

Winning the Super Bowl with The Bucs was basically him :censored: slapping every critic he still has. 

 

I completely get if you hate the guy, that's fair. But you simply can't deny what he has been able to accomplish. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

"Biased," not "bias". I don't know how "bias" by itself as an adjective became the default word but it bums me out.

[gosioux76]

On 9/4/2021 at 8:02 PM, Kramerica Industries said:

So it makes sense. That the Bucs have two Super Bowls in their history with those statistics makes zero sense. The 21st-31st ranked teams in all-time regular season win percentage have combined for two Super Bowls across who knows how many combined seasons. They have the same number of championships as the #3 ranked Ravens (.564 W%). #6 Vikings and their .545 win percentage? Zero Super Bowls. 

 

But it's exactly because of this that Bucs fans really shouldn't act as if they're the NFL's default punchline. 

 

I'm coming to this as a fan of the Vikings, a team that lost its fourth Super Bowl when I was three months old and has had five heartbreaking NFC Championship losses in the time since. I'm convinced at this point that the team will never again make it to the Super Bowl in my lifetime, let alone win it.

 

The Bucs may have suffered through years of futility, but they've got two championship titles that should give those fans a sense of comfort. 

 

I can understand never being satisfied and always wanting to win. But there's nothing more futile than following a team that seems to always be in contention, but never accomplishes anything. 

 

[Kooky01]

13 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

But it's exactly because of this that Bucs fans really shouldn't act as if they're the NFL's default punchline. 

 

I'm coming to this as a fan of the Vikings, a team that lost its fourth Super Bowl when I was three months old and has had five heartbreaking NFC Championship losses in the time since. I'm convinced at this point that the team will never again make it to the Super Bowl in my lifetime, let alone win it.

 

The Bucs may have suffered through years of futility, but they've got two championship titles that should give those fans a sense of comfort. 

 

I can understand never being satisfied and always wanting to lose. But there's nothing more futile than following a team that seems to always be in contention, but never accomplishes anything. 

 

Exactly.  The Miami Marlins have been to the playoffs like three times in their history, yet have two championships. Yet, the Vikings are usually in contention, yet they always find a way to screw it up in the playoffs. Personally, i'd rather be a fan of a team that sucks most of the time yet has some rings than a team that makes a playoffs more often than not but chokes every time. 

[Red Wolf]

The Buccaneers are far less of a punchline than the Vikings. Not just because of winning a Super Bowl (and now a second), but because people forget that Tampa Bay football is a thing.

[gosioux76]

18 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

The Buccaneers are far less of a punchline than the Vikings. Not just because of winning a Super Bowl (and now a second), but because people forget that Tampa Bay football is a thing.

 

I'm sorry, but on what planet does this happen? 

[dont care]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I'm sorry, but on what planet does this happen? 

This one before last season.

[DnBronc]

On 9/5/2021 at 10:56 PM, dont care said:

I feel like I’m witnessing a Charlie from “always sunny” level of mental breakdown hear. Dude you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. You continue with the same sorry ass excuses, and it just doesn’t work. Brady has been the most dominant QB on the most dominant teams for over 2 decades now. That is why he is the goat end of discussion. No one will take that title from him while we are alive, and no one in history or currently playing has any sort of argument for why they are. He is top 3 in every single stat that matters, and has the most post season success that there ever was. That doesn’t even include his vast amount of records he holds that some won’t ever even be touched if not for the inevitable increase in games.

 

Rings don't make you GOAT. Brady and Belichick should have been kicked out of the NFL over a decade ago. They are cheaters. The NFL has fixed games for them for years. These last 20 years are the most dishonest time in NFL history.

[Red Wolf]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I'm sorry, but on what planet does this happen? 

 

Earth.

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

 

Rings don't make you GOAT. Brady and Belichick should have been kicked out of the NFL over a decade ago. They are cheaters. The NFL has fixed games for them for years. These last 20 years are the most dishonest time in NFL history.

 

 

[Red Wolf]

14 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

 

Rings don't make you GOAT. Brady and Belichick should have been kicked out of the NFL over a decade ago. They are cheaters. The NFL has fixed games for them for years. These last 20 years are the most dishonest time in NFL history.

 

The same NFL that didn't have a team in Los Angeles for a couple decades? Come on now. They not only don't care about markets but they also don't have to.

 

Maybe direct your ire towards the NBA who had Phoenix and Milwaukee battle for a title. Wait.

[IceCap]

36 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

These last 20 years are the most dishonest time in NFL history.

So the last honest period of NFL history happened to be when the Broncos were the best team in the league?

[jamesizzo]

36 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

 

They are cheaters. The NFL has fixed games for them for years. These last 20 years are the most dishonest time in NFL history.

And I'm sure the Denver Broncos could never be accused of cheating in the NFL... like circumventing the salary cap in the late 90s....

[officeglenn]

Alright, that's enough. Shutting this down. I'm all for spirited debate, but we're going around in circles here and clearly no one's mind is getting changed.