2014 NFL Regular Season

[Darkness]

Except for the small fact that Lynch's absolute best years have been with Wilson as QB. That's simply undeniable.

Yeah, Wilson is the better player. Name another young QB that's been to the Superbowl in 2 of their first 3 years of playing. Oh wait...no one has...except Wilson.

And yet the Seahawks offense depends on Lynch getting Beast Mode going. Lynch takes a huge load of attention of the passing game. With his running style you have to put 8 in the box to stop him. Which gives Wilson 1-on-1 options all over the field.

I like Wilson. He's very talented and already a good QB, but Lynch is what makes the Seahawks offense go. So he should have been the call.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And yet the Seahawks offense depends on Lynch getting Beast Mode going. Lynch takes a huge load of attention of the passing game. With his running style you have to put 8 in the box to stop him. Which gives Wilson 1-on-1 options all over the field.

I like Wilson. He's very talented and already a good QB, but Lynch is what makes the Seahawks offense go. So he should have been the call.

You just said that he makes them put eight in the box and give Wilson 1 on 1 coverage all over the field...okay, so the Patriots put eight in the box and gave them one on one coverage... and the play call was a pass. By your own logic that seems appropriate, so how do you jump to "so Lynch should have been the call"? Once they load the box and give up that one on one coverage isn't his job done?

Bottom line, against the defense the Patriots were in the call that was made was a good choice. Didn't work, but you get a loaded box and one on one coverage a pass is the play.

 

[sophie]

You just said that he makes them put eight in the box and give Wilson 1 on 1 coverage all over the field...okay, so the Patriots put eight in the box and gave them one on one coverage... and the play call was a pass. By your own logic that seems appropriate, so how do you jump to "so Lynch should have been the call"? Once they load the box and give up that one on one coverage isn't his job done?

Bottom line, against the defense the Patriots were in the call that was made was a good choice. Didn't work, but you get a loaded box and one on one coverage a pass is the play.

Except the Seahawks were running a 3WR set and nobody on the Pats defense was reading the play as a run. It was read as pass all the way which is why they were able to jump the route so easily.

 

[dgfred]

... interesting when I listen to almost all defensive players from other teams say---
The Beast can hurt you... but R.Wilson will kill you.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Except for the small fact that Lynch's absolute best years have been with Wilson as QB. That's simply undeniable.

So what? It's also undeniable that Michael Jordan's absolute best years were with Scottie Pippen on the team. That does not mean that Scottie Pippen is better than Jordan.

Yeah, Wilson is the better player. Name another young QB that's been to the Superbowl in 2 of their first 3 years of playing. Oh wait...no one has...except Wilson.

That's irrelevant. Name a young QB that went to the Superbowl 4 times in a row in his first 8 years in the league... No one has done that besides Jim Kelly...So what? Thurman Thomas was still the best Offensive player.

Lynch takes a huge load of attention of the passing game.

I like Wilson. He's very talented and already a good QB, but Lynch is what makes the Seahawks offense go. So he should have been the call.

This.

Except the Seahawks were running a 3WR set and nobody on the Pats defense was reading the play as a run. It was read as pass all the way which is why they were able to jump the route so easily.

And This.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think it is really harsh to say that Brady's 2 picks defines his stature behind Montana, even though no picks in 4 super bowls is mighty impressive.

Well first of all, Brady threw picks in multiple other Superbowls, so it's not just those two I am basing it on. His picks caused his team to lose in some cases. How can you ignore that?

Second... its more harsh to deny Montana when he outperformed Brady, right? We can't just like Brady more and really, really want Brady to be GOAT. When we are splitting hairs between Hall of fame players, we have to look at their performance, we can't just go with who we like better. Its harsh that SEA had to lose because of Wilson's 1 INT at the end, but that's football. Mistakes matter. That's how we judge between the best and the almost-best.

Montana is undefeated in Superbowls. Brady can't achieve that. Period. For me its open-and-shut, especially when Montana has the same number of SB wins and zero SB picks. There is simply no rational argument for Brady to be GOAT.

Something different about Brady's 4 rings--all of his Super Bowl wins were super close

But that just further bolsters why Montana is the clear winner. Brady struggled to win the SBs while Montana was blowing people out. And these weren't chumps Montana was stomping. We're talking Dan Marino and John Elway for goodness sake. Brady got his lunch handed to him by Eli Manning of all people... twice!

To me the more interesting question is where to place the Patriots dynasty (yeah, it's a dynasty people) in history

But, The fact that you have to argue that its a dynasty says a lot doesn't it? (I agree with you BTW)

In the Brady/Belichick era

the Pats have sat atop one of the absolute worst, most pathetic, inept, cakewalk divisions in football. That has played a huge role in why they have been so dominant. While the Steelers and Ravens (and now Bengals) kill each other all season and wear each other down all season, the Pats (and Colts) coast to easy victory after victory with relative minimal injuries or difficulties. That is a huge factor in why Brady and Manning have so many comeback wins... because they play so many games against powderpuff teams that can't close the deal.

Another significant factor about that terrible division (like the equally terrible AFC South) is that it is unfairly constructed, precisely to advantage Brady (and Manning... and now Luck). The Colts should obviously have been in the AFC North and the Ravens should obviously have been in the AFC East (Miami belongs in the South, with the other Florida teams, JAX is AFC South and Tampa is NFC South). An AFC East with the Ray Lewis-Ravens in it makes Brady's legacy much more interesting doesn't it?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Except the Seahawks were running a 3WR set and nobody on the Pats defense was reading the play as a run. It was read as pass all the way which is why they were able to jump the route so easily.

They can talk all they want about expecting a pass. Doesn't change that they had eight in the box and straight man on man coverage with zero help. Browner executed perfectly. Butler executed perfectly. There wasn't anything easy about how they jumped that route.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On the GOAT and Super Bowl thing, I heard a brilliant statement yesterday:

The best team wins the Super Bowl, not necessarily the best quarterback. This season Aaron Rodgers was the best quarterback, and his team didn't even play in the Super Bowl.

Now, being a 'big gamer' and being on a Super Bowl winning team and contributing certainly has merit, but I don't see the 'only Bradshaw, Montana, and Brady can be considered because they have four rings apiece' as a valid position.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't see the 'only Bradshaw, Montana, and Brady can be considered because they have four rings apiece' as a valid position.

Who said that? You can consider anyone. But without getting into splitting hairs into the Greatest Superbowl QB versus GOAT QB... I simply said Montana is hands-down the greatest because he is the only QB undefeated in SBs with zero SB picks and back-to-back SB wins.

Apply that standard, and you can consider whoever you want. I don't mind considering others, but you need to apply a standard. I am just resistant to attempts to make the discussion about intangible, completely subjective, nebulous stuff like "leadership skills" "hustle" "physical ability" or a bunch of hypothetical "would-have- ifs". I like to stick to what can be measured, like statistics.

Look at it another way... Who are the top 5 (or 10 if you prefer) GOAT NFL QBs? Now how do we decide between them who is THE GOAT? You need a standard.

 

[BirraImperial]

Here's a nice analysis of that final play...In short, the Pats knew a pass was coming, they knew the play the Seahawks called and both Browner and Butler executed perfectly to pick the pass.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Who said that? You can consider anyone. But without getting into splitting hairs into the Greatest Superbowl QB versus GOAT QB... I simply said Montana is hands-down the greatest because he is the only QB undefeated in SBs with zero SB picks and back-to-back SB wins.

Apply that standard, and you can consider whoever you want. I don't mind considering others, but you need to apply a standard. I am just resistant to attempts to make the discussion about intangible, completely subjective, nebulous stuff like "leadership skills" "hustle" "physical ability" or a bunch of hypothetical "would-have- ifs". I like to stick to what can be measured, like statistics.

Look at it another way... Who are the 5 GOAT NFL QBs? Now how do we decide between them who is THE GOAT? You need a standard.

Unfortunately if you go by statistics you run head first into Peyton Manning, who carries the intangible and subjective but hard to dismiss 'big game choker' tag. Brady and Montana have super bowl performances and statistics that can be used to argue for their otherwise intangible leadership, but I don't think you can just grab those isolated statistics and use them as the full standard.

Physical ability, by the way, is a measurable thing, and it is a measurable standard where Montana will really suffer. He did not have anywhere near the arm that most other quarterbacks in consideration have...or had in Brady's case. One argument I would make for Brady is that he has been highly productive when he had the physical skills to be the QB of a team built to blow the top off the defense with the threat of the long ball, and is now highly productive on a team built to work around his aging arm.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Here's a nice analysis of that final play...In short, the Pats knew a pass was coming, they knew the play the Seahawks called and both Browner and Butler executed perfectly to pick the pass.

I just saw a high angle replay of the play. Two things to notice.

First, the Patriots are in straight man coverage with no safety at all. Everybody in the box is nuts up to the line. Basically, against that defense the play called is a great play to be in.

Second, Browner made the play just as much as Butler. Lockett is stacked behind and outside Kearse, so Butler is outside and behind Browner. If Kearse gets one step off the line him and Browner are in Butler's way so he has to take a curved path to the ball. Browner jams Kearse so solidly that he actually gets moved back. That leaves Butler the straight line to the ball, and Lockett is the one that has to take a curve around them. End of story.

If they had it all to do again I'd say the play call was basically good, but I'm sure they wish they had put someone bigger than Kearse out there. Of course other than Matthews they don't have a receiver bigger than Kearse, and Matthews wasn't on the field for that last series so...history and get ready for next season.

The article you linked has good stills, but it really shows up on the video. Sorry I can't give a link, but I didn't see it on the internet.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Excellent article. Thanks BirraImperial!

Manning's stats perfectly illustrate my point, because while it is easier to compile impressive regular season stats against inferior opponents, there is nowhere to run or hide in the playoffs when you are facing the cream of the crop and finally the SB when you face the best of the best.

Peyton Manning may be the best regular season QB in history, but he has always been shaky when facing the tougher competition of the Playoffs. That is why SB wins, and SB (and playoff) performance is so critical in splitting hairs on the GOAT question.

And that is where Montana separates himself as the GOAT. His playoff and most importantly SB stats/performance is unmatched.

 

[MobBoss]

So what? It's also undeniable that Michael Jordan's absolute best years were with Scottie Pippen on the team. That does not mean that Scottie Pippen is better than Jordan. That's irrelevant. Name a young QB that went to the Superbowl 4 times in a row in his first 8 years in the league... No one has done that besides Jim Kelly...So what? Thurman Thomas was still the best Offensive player.This.
And This.

Dude...Lynch isn't Michael Jordan, so your comparison there is more than flawed. My point of Lynch being better with Wilson was indeed a counter to the point that was made about Lynch always being 'beast mode'. If that were true, he'd never been traded by Buffalo.

With just Lynch Seattle went to zero Superbowls. With Wilson they've now been to 2 in 3 years.

That right there indicates that the team is far better with Wilson and Lynch than it simply was with Lynch. I've never said Lynch wasn't important to the team...he absolutely is. But Wilson is their best player.

 

[Light Cleric]

Dude...Lynch isn't Michael Jordan, so your comparison there is more than flawed. My point of Lynch being better with Wilson was indeed a counter to the point that was made about Lynch always being 'beast mode'. If that were true, he'd never been traded by Buffalo.

New Orleans offered Buffalo a 1st round pick for Lynch and they declined. Buffalo later traded him for significantly less only after he had been suspended and been injured and they had a crowded backfield with him, CJ Spiller, Fred Jackson and someone else I can't even remember anymore.

With just Lynch Seattle went to zero Superbowls. With Wilson they've now been to 2 in 3 years.

That right there indicates that the team is far better with Wilson and Lynch than it simply was with Lynch. I've never said Lynch wasn't important to the team...he absolutely is. But Wilson is their best player.

This logic is painful

You could use that same argument to say that Wilson has never accomplished anything without both Lynch and a historically good defense. And that's absolutely true. That doesn't mean he's not a really good quarterback.

Lynch has had multiple +1000 yard seasons with Trent Edwards, JP Losman and Tarvaris Jackson as quarterbacks.

Like I said I already made the argument about Lynch a while back and how the NFC title game displayed literally everything I said about that team but it apparently doesn't matter because Lynch didn't get to a Super Bowl but Wilson did and I guess we're discounting the difference in quality of the teams they played with because reasons.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Dude...Lynch isn't Michael Jordan

And Wilson is no Scottie Pippen (not yet anyway). My point is still valid. I used two HOF players to make a smaller scale point. Which is that one is clearly better and the fact that they are more successful once the latter joined the team doesn't change that.

With just Lynch Seattle went to zero Superbowls. With Wilson they've now been to 2 in 3 years.

Yep well I could say the same thing about Sherman... so I will... With just Lynch Seattle went to zero Superbowls. With Wilson Sherman they've now been to 2 in 3 4 years... So again... Jordan, Pippen... Same Bat-point, same Bat-channel.

I've never said Lynch wasn't important to the team...he absolutely is. But Wilson is their best player.

Wilson is the most exciting player. He is the most famous player. He is the most visible player. He might even arguably be the most important player. You might even call him the most dangerous player (whatever that means ).

But Lynch is the BEST player on that offense. And Lynch should have gotten the ball on that play.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Another way of looking at it... I would say the top 4 NFL QBs right now in no particular order are Rodgers, Manning, Brady and Luck. We could certainly argue about whether # 5 is Romo, Brees or Big Ben, but there is no way Wilson is in the top 5 and certainly not top 3.

Top 5 RBs are, again in no particular order, DeMarco Murray, Marshawn Lynch, Lashawn McCoy, LeVeon Bell and Arian Foster. Lynch is easily top 5 and heck it's easy to make the case that he's top 2 looking at all stats and considering his team went to the SB, right?

So how can the argument be made that Wilson is better than Lynch? TBH I think Sherman is better than Wilson b/c he is one of the best in the league at his position, while Wilson is just a pretty good QB who can also run. (I detest Sherman BTW, but that man can play some football)

 

[BenitoChavez]

To determine the GOAT wouldn't it be better to look at a player's entire career rather than just the super bowl games they won? I get the super bowl is the pinnacle of the sport, but statically its such a small percentage of the games played over the course of a career and super bowl wins are a team accomplishment not an individual one. Also people seems to be counting super bowl losses as a negative. Shouldn't the fact that you got to the big game more times than someone else be a viewed as a positive?

 

[caketastydelish]

Dude...Lynch isn't Michael Jordan, so your comparison there is more than flawed. My point of Lynch being better with Wilson was indeed a counter to the point that was made about Lynch always being 'beast mode'. If that were true, he'd never been traded by Buffalo.

With just Lynch Seattle went to zero Superbowls. With Wilson they've now been to 2 in 3 years.

That right there indicates that the team is far better with Wilson and Lynch than it simply was with Lynch. I've never said Lynch wasn't important to the team...he absolutely is. But Wilson is their best player.

Wilson almost cost Seattle the game against Green Bay. Four interceptions in one game? Please. And he certainly threw that interception to cost them the game against Patriots.

 

[Sommerswerd]

To determine the GOAT wouldn't it be better to look at a player's entire career rather than just the super bowl games they won? I get the super bowl is the pinnacle of the sport, but statically its such a small percentage of the games played over the course of a career and super bowl wins are a team accomplishment not an individual one.

Start off by asking yourself "Who are the top 5 GOAT QBs?" If the guy isn't on that list then we don't need to waste time arguing about his career stats. So that's Montana, Brady and Elway for sure, plus who else? Manning? Favre? Marino? Who else? Bradshaw? Why? Because SB wins? OK... Anyone else? Remember this is top 5 GOAT.

Now only at this point would I look at career stats, and promptly eliminate Bradshaw... but even assuming Bradshaw stays, then how do we decide between these HOF QBs?

That's why playoff and SB performance matter so much. By the time you get to the cream of the crop, you need some way to distinguish them. They all have records, MVPs etc. That's the whole point of Playoffs. It lets you see what happens when the best face the best. So we go to SB and playoff performance which eliminates Marino, Manning and Favre, leaving us with Montana, Brady and Bradshaw...

Now if you think Bradshaw belongs in a GOAT discussion with Brady and Montana, I don't know what to tell you, but it doesn't matter, because if we look at SB performance we can see that Montana is perfect with no INTs while Bradshaw and Brady throw picks. Montana wins.

Also people seems to be counting super bowl losses as a negative. Shouldn't the fact that you got to the big game more times than someone else be a viewed as a positive?

This is a really good point and the best case for Brady IMO. But its balanced off by what all those INTs and losses represent. When Brady faces the best on the biggest stage, he has delivered sometimes brilliant, but sometimes deeply flawed performances. Montana has been flawless, every time. That is why Montana is GOAT.

 

[illram]

Come on man. I get you're a Niner fan but calling his performances "deeply" flawed is a little bit of hyperbole.

Clearly, this is up for debate. I would at least quibble that the answer here is 100% clear. Getting to the title game 6 times, throwing for more TD's than Montana, not having a necessarily dominant surrounding cast in his long long run as Patriot, compared to the Niner teams that I think on paper had an edge as far as personnel on both sides of the ball, and Brady also has the edge in longevity (Montana retired at 38, Brady is 37 and barring injury poised to finish his career at 40 when his contract is up, and Brady's title run far outlasted the span of time in which Montana went to his Super Bowls).