Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2012-2013 NFL Football Thread
- Thread starter einmusiker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have no doubt Eli and the current team he is with know how to stop the Pats, but since they are not in, Pats should at least beat Baltimore and not have a team that cursed them like the Giants waiting to rain on parade.
I go back and forth between whether Atlanta would win or lose in SB with Pats. They don't win pretty but it's not out of the question that they could win.
San Francisco is hot and cold but if Kap is on like he was against the Packers (a better team than the Pats) then SF will easily win. However, if the 49ers self destruct like they did against Seattle in regular season, then Pats should have an easy time walking all over my 49ers. Had Alex Smith been QB in SF, knowing how he plays and how SF wins games against all types of tough teams, I would be pretty confident of SF win. But the wild ride Kap puts us on leaves me totally in the dark about if we can win SB if we end up against New England and I think a lot of the inconsistency is due to Kap being part of first season in starter role.
All this is what I would say against Baltimore, too. While Flacco isn't as flashy as Brady, he gets the big plays at the right time and has proven his worth for more lucrative contract with Baltimore.
But with all that, and confidence that Niners could take either remaining AFC team, we have to beat Atlanta. If Atlanta peaks and beats a prepared SF by 10 or more points, and comes to the SB with that type of peak play, then they will kill whoever they meet in Super Bowl. I think Atlanta getting this far, and possibly SB, is not a fluke and was a process in the making for quite some time. They carefully grew and kept key people and nurtured new talent that a first SB win could be what is the culmination of all that work. Their baseball team did the same thing coming from a nothing team to slowly building what would become the most dominant pitching staff in baseball history. I wonder if Atlanta fans will enjoy a long, successful run of their Falcons making it to SB several times in next decade.
In the late-90s the AFC got it going and most teams faced a tough schedule and it built character to where at least two teams (NE and Denver) became dynasties being a sure thing for playoffs. But now in different era ten years later the tougher schedules are more heavily weighted to the NFC and teams with rather poor records like the N.O. Saints don't tell the whole story. If you get a good record in the now harder NFC, you are primed for postseason and it has helped the NFC teams in SB in last half of decade. We also make jokes about the Dallas Cowboys of the '90s who we got used to winning three Super Bowls in four years (like the Patriots), but even if such a team who doesn't win the big prize now were in the AFC (and Saints, too), the final record at end of season would be a different story. Likewise, if you stick a Baltimore, Denver, or New England in the NFC, they wouldn't look as dominant.
I don't know if new found heroics of Joe Flacco (he recently looked like another Joe I remember in SF) and Tom Brady will be enough to face off with either the well rounded, battle hardened teams of the NFC like SF and Atlanta. Tom Brady could make something out of nothing and you could never count him out, and Joe Flacco at least up until recently, was perhaps the most underrated QB in football.
Tom Brady doesn't lose to the same team twice in one season.
Look out Baltimore and San Francisco.
I don't think Atlanta's defense is good enough to stop New England. The Giants beat the Patriots not because of Eli, but because they had Pierre-Paul, Umenyiora, and Kiwanuka to put consistent pressure on Brady and the offensive line. San Francisco did it last month when they beat the Patriots.
Houston couldn't do it yesterday. That's why they lost. I don't think Atlanta has a good enough defensive line to beat the Patriots.
Look out Baltimore and San Francisco.
I don't think Atlanta's defense is good enough to stop New England. The Giants beat the Patriots not because of Eli, but because they had Pierre-Paul, Umenyiora, and Kiwanuka to put consistent pressure on Brady and the offensive line. San Francisco did it last month when they beat the Patriots.
Houston couldn't do it yesterday. That's why they lost. I don't think Atlanta has a good enough defensive line to beat the Patriots.
Last edited:
Tom Brady doesn't lose to the same team twice in one season.
Look out Baltimore and San Francisco.
Brady and Pats lost twice to Giants in one season and second game was Super Bowl. We all have weak spots. My dominant Niners couldn't handle the 90s Dallas Cowboys as they beat us 2 out of 3 times in NFC championship. We have the Rams and Seahawks as pains in our butt these days. Without a doubt, you have the NY Giants in last five years as nemesis who has bested you.
While the Pats are a great team, a small handful of teams out there are very well suited to stopping the Patriots and sometimes they succeed. San Francisco isn't such a threat to you because we have a great quarterback, OK, but our strong defense works well with trying to stop Brady. No team can win every game in season and Super Bowl (other than Dolphins several decades ago) and that's what makes this sport exciting.
When we were out watching Jordan and the Bulls when he wasn't off playing baseball badly, the Williams sisters in tennis, Wooden coached UCLA in college basketball, or similar teams that were way ahead of everyone else, we could pretty accurately predict a team coming back year after year and not only winning but crushing the competition.
Nobody comes close to that in the NFL and even a Montana or Bradshaw who had four SBs in a decade with great teams still found others who could stop them on the way there. Look at the past winners of SB in last 20 years. There's no one team that were anything close to a UCLA's Wooden, winning I think 10 out of 12 years with title.
Without Gronk, who is almost if not as important/potent as Brady, it's hard to say you can pose the same challenge to a #1 seeded Atlanta or SF the same way as if you had him. You may go all the way, but if you don't trust me the first thing everyone will say was it was because Gronk was out, and they will probably be right.
Gronk to you as a weapon is as important as Rice or Lott was to SF in their glory years. We didn't get the five Super Bowls because of Montana and Young alone.
...Week 9 loss to Giants in regular season, and Super Bowl loss to Giants during 2011-12 season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_New_England_Patriots_season
Twice in 11 seasons as a starter. The Giants last year and the Jets in 2010. Off the top of my head I think that's it.
Gronk is a great player no doubt, the best at his position in the league, but he is replaceable. There are 3 guys on this roster who are irreplaceable if they go down: Brady, Wilfork, and Mayo. I'd probably include Hernandez and Welker in this group now, but only because Gronk and Edelman are done for this year.
It sucks losing Gronk, no denying that, but the Patriots are extremely lucky that they still have plenty of personnel and talent (Hernandez, Welker, Lloyd, Branch, Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead, Hoomanawanui) to step up. All that matters is Brady. We've seen what he did with David Patten, David Givens, Troy Brown, Reche Caldwell, Jabar Gaffney, etc.
As long as Brady is healthy and he has guys who can get open and catch the ball the Patriots will be fine. They can't run their super deadly double TE offense without Gronk and Hernandez (although Hooman has filled in very well for Gronk, especially in running situations) but the offense is still stacked with Welker-Hernandez-Lloyd-Ridley/Vereen-Hooman out on the field.
I'd argue that Welker is much more important to this teams success than Gronk, and that's because we also have Hernandez at tight end (though he can line up anywhere). They aren't the same type of player, but they're both all-pro level talents. I don't think anyone would argue Gronk is the best TE in the league, but Hernandez is no doubt in the top 10 and could be close to the top 5. There was a lot of debate going in to the season after both these guys inked long term deals, and the thought among many Patriots was that although Gronk is clearly the best TE in the league, Hernandez is the more valuable player because of his versatility and the fact that he can line up and be used as a WR, RB, TE, PR, KR, you name it. Between Gronk's huge numbers last year and his personality, it's easy to see why he's become a superstar so quick. Hernandez is more reserved and quiet, and kind of falls in the shadow of Gronk, but he is a hell of a talent too.
Pats in the 11 regular season games with Gronkowski: 35 points, 433 yards a game.
Pats in the five regular season games without Gronkowski: 34 points, 417 yards a game.
Like I said, it all comes down to Brady. If he's healthy, comes out and plays his game and doesn't turn the ball over, he could be throwing to just about anyone and still be successful.
----
Completely unrelated stat but I saw on twitter earlier today that Tom Brady has played in the AFC championship game in 58% of the seasons he has been the Patriots starting QB. That's insane.
This morning on CBS Jim Brown was saying you guys are the only dynasty now. In the past you had .750 Madden Raiders (winningest professional sports team ever) going against Steelers going against longest run NFL dynasty of Cowboys going against most efficient QB and best 3rd down QB ever Fran Tartekenton going against unbeatable Dolphins. The '80s had Broncos, Redskins, Giants, and 49ers, and next decade had Cowboys, Packers, 49ers and if it wasn't only in Super Bowls, it was in winning percentage and trips to postseason. There were so many dynasties alive with core players forming winning teams.
But now, from the turn of the century until this day, there's no cohesiveness like there was in previous three decades except for Patriots who may make 6th Super Bowl run in just 12 years and easily a dynasty with nobody else coming close.
Gronk was not on the three Super Bowl winning teams, and I will acknowledge that, but:
He's best player in his position in league: YES, without any doubt
He's best player in his position ever on Patriots: duh, of course
He's one of the best offensive players in league: Probably
He's just as important (now) as Brady? I say maybe because while Brady has had some terrible days, heartbreaking losses, and other mishaps squarely put on his shoulders, Gronk just doesn't falter.
Basically where Montana or Young could have off days, someone like Rice didn't and it was extremely rare. On same note looking at indispensable offensive players, there were times the unstoppable 1990s Cowboys had off days for either Irvin or Aikman, or both, Smith rarely had a bad outing. Win or lose, guys like Rice and Smith, arguably the best offensive players in the history of the sport (QBs included) came to play and win. Your Gronk has and can be a Rice or Smith as a weapon and all time offensive player beyond the reaches of even the most consistent quarterbacks in the NFL.
I remember seeing a comparison of Gronk Patriots and times where he was out or for some reason not used to full capacity and the stats were staggering almost along the lines of what the Colts were without Manning.
I am not saying give up hope, but it would be stupid for New England to play the game as if Gronk were there. He's a gigantic presence and play maker pretty much reinventing his position for other teams to emulate.
When I talk to Cowboys fans now 15 years after their early/mid 90s dynasty, they rarely mention Irvin or Aikman, and it's all about Smith. Usually the QB is the star and at the time the triplets of Dallas were treated equally but when you look at what each did compared to other players in the same position in the league, Smith was a force of nature and made his yards at the best possible time (third down, playoff games, come from behind games, etc.)
Visit some Gronk worship sites and you will see what can become the most relevant player of his generation. I don't know how you guys got him, but if you think he's replaceable then send him over to San Francisco.
(had Gronk caught one certain hail Mary pass, he would be put in same sentence as a Rice or Smith without having to put in nearly as many years)
Insane indeed, so now the question is, who has the best front four that could disrupt Brady enough to give their team a chance out of the remaining teams.
My guess is the 49ers, but can they also get past Atlanta.
With the way the defenses have been playing in the past 4 games, that is not much at all, it just makes it all guessing games.
meh, considering how weak the AFC is it's not that special :stirring:
----------
Tom Brady doesn't lose to the same team twice in one season.
Look out Baltimore and San Francisco.
pwned
No one is arguing he's not an incredible player and a super star at his position. Would we love to have him? Are you kidding me? I'd trade my own arm for his to not be broken. But unlike last year's Super Bowl, we know we won't have him. Other players can and will step up. We've played 5 games this season with out him, in the second half when it really matters. We'll have all week to game plan for the Ravens without him, and Aaron Hernandez isn't exactly chopped liver. When we played the Ravens last time (and lost) we had no Hernandez, and a less than effective Gronkowski, who had an injury IIRC.
Not to mention the run game and the defense are both vastly improved. Our defense with Aqib Talib has been much, much better.
If the Patriots play to their capabilities, I am confident. No more, no less. Should be a good game either way, I can't wait.
Last edited:
Sometimes I still can't even believe what they have accomplished in this era of free agency and the salary cap. Going to the AFC championship game in half of the seasons that Belichick has coached here is mind boggling sometimes. And he's completely rebuilt the roster while this has happened too.
2003 and 2004's rosters were quite similar, but there were huge differences with the 01, 07, and 11 teams. Brady, Belichick, and Dante Scarnecchia are the only 3 people remaining from the 01 and 03 teams. Wilfork was a rookie in 04. Every other position on the roster has turned over multiple times but they still keep winning.
Hernandez has done this too, but in a different way obviously because he is a different type of player.
Visit some Gronk worship sites and you will see what can become the most relevant player of his generation. I don't know how you guys got him, but if you think he's replaceable then send him over to San Francisco.
I don't need to visit any Gronk sites to know this. I see his face plastered all over billboards and Dunkin Donuts drivethrus every day. I only live 20 minutes from the stadium.
A player that good and that unique is never really replaceable, maybe I used the wrong word. But when you have another guy like a Hernandez who is a #1 TE on 2/3 of the teams in the league to step in and take his place, you're still in pretty good shape.
Had Gronk been healthy Brady would be making a run at ring #5 instead of ring #4 right now.
The 49ers did it in the first matchup this year, especially in the 1st half. They came out strong, put the pressure on on defense, and forced the Patriots to make an uncharacteristic 4 turnovers.
They ran out of steam in the 2nd half though, and couldn't keep up with the Patriots no-huddle when the Pats put up 28 unanswered to make it a game again.
SF has the talent to do it, but the question is if they can maintain it for a full 60 minutes. And they would have to hope the Patriots made some mistakes and turned the ball over again.
Do you ever contribute anything to the discussion or are you just here to troll?
Brady needs to get his record 6th Super Bowl start and win to erase doubts about him being best now, and best ever. Being way behind Peyton Manning in overall yards and TDs and way behind Aaron Rodgers in QB rating, a Super Bowl win will have non-Pats fans be OK with Brady being tagged the best in the league among active QBs.
And for greatest of all time, though his regular season stats puts him elite company, he needs that 4th Super Bowl win, not being some 35 year old who couldn't get it done and hasn't won it since eight years ago, and couldn't do it as quickly as Bradshaw and Montana did. If Brady gets that 4th ring now, his other top stats in regular season play will comfortably put him in same sentence as Bradshaw and Montana.
This could be Brady's last chance at it and it's not as if he can go to age 43 chasing that elusive 4th Super Bowl two other quarterbacks have. A lot will be determined, of course, in how well the rest of his team plays. If it were Romo or Rivers, with similar QB rating to Brady, heading up New England, it may be them with three rings. Since Brady doesn't have 55,000 yards passing or a career 105 QB rating, his three rings won't put him in company with Bradshaw and Montana outside of Boston when it comes to who is the greatest.
Do you ever contribute anything to the discussion or are you just here to troll?
Give him a break, he's probably getting tired of watching the Patriots roll on while his Packers go home.
You would trade broken arms?
Wow.
But at least you understand just how big he is for NE.
When Patriots fans have to start pulling out every stat others do, or have done, or are capable of doing just to make up for just one man being out, Gronk, that speaks volumes.
You guys in New England are blessed with Brady from 2000 to present and maybe for another two or three years if all goes well, and hopefully a full decade post-Brady with Gronk who may continue putting rings (I say at least one more ring and largely attributed to the Gronk) on the fingers of NE players and coaches. With Gronk, the guy you want to trade arms with, you can have a dynasty going well past 2025 if he holds up and you get at least a mediocre quarterback to work with him.
The Cowboys, on and off, had a pretty good quarter of a century being relevant and my Niners had a good 19 or 20 year run of perennially being put among early Super Bowl hopefuls.
Oh god, yes. Absolutely. I'm pretty sure I could deal with a broken forearm so my all-world tight end could play in the postseason. It's not even a question. I can't imagine any Patriots fan wouldn't do that right about now.
And yes, he's an amazing player. I still wonder what would have happened last year had we had Gronk healthy in the SB. But if you look at this New England offense, it's one of the few offenses on the planet that can handle his loss. We have Hernandez, we have Welker, we have Lloyd, we have guys like Vereen stepping up. You hate to lose a player like that, of course, but they're equipped to handle it, and they have.
But I certainly hope the Ravens think we're effed without Gronkowski.
While I cross swords more with him than anybody on these football forums, he has proved me wrong more than anybody here. While I can't stand Green Bay, and sometimes the NFL's most loyal fans by a country mile, his contributions, as well as being this year's thread starter, makes this forum interesting.
I could beat my chest and say "ha ha, we beat Green Bay", but he knows and I know that Green Bay is the far superior team and things just went right for Kap and the Niners. In a perfect world, Kap will roll like that (running back who happens to throw well, too) against Atlanta and Super Bowl foe, but things like that just don't happen three times in a row. Kap's passing alone won't get us past Atlanta, and probably not NE or Baltimore either. If einmusiker is a die hard GB fan, he has a right to having most prolific passer in NFL history be followed up with most accurate passer in NFL history.
Had he been a Chief's fan or Chargers fan and talked ***** to the Niners, Ravens, Broncos, or Pats, then it would be troublesome.
Sorry, but when it comes to the Patriots, he can NEVER give credit where it's due and his bitterness (for some odd reason) turns his posts into nothing more than trolling. I've been a contributing member of these threads for 2+ years now, and it's been the same song. I've seen enough of it. You give respect to get respect. Even when I point out weaknesses or debate about other teams, I back it up with facts and not childish taunts or slights.
I have no idea why he hates New England so, Green Bay beat us in the last Super Bowl they played together. Aaron Rodgers is one of the best, and I have total respect for Green Bay. But einmusiker's act is tired.
If Gronk was healthy, you would have 4 rings and you wouldn't have to defend Brady not being put in same sentence as his hero, Joe Montana.
If Gronk was healthy in that Super Bowl, Brady wouldn't have had to throw a hail Mary and could have just kneeled on last play and watch your coach get doused with Gatorade.
And if you collapse in AFC playoffs, not only Ravens fans will say so, but everybody else too. You are effed for sure, but effed out of this postseason? Only time will tell.
He makes a great point, Google it, about the AFC being weak and the Pats (last three seasons) schedule the easiest or closest to being the easiest.
Anyway being in Boston, try being in NFC for a second and shoved there like Seahawks from AFC west to NFC west. Let's say you were NFC east. Hmm. How many Super Bowls does that division have? How far back are/were those teams relevant?
If you don't believe him or me, read ESPN or any related site.
The NFC, right now, is like the majors and AFC being the AAA ball league. But yes, in 2000s it was the other way around with strength and tougher schedule in AFC thus the younger and stronger 20-something Brady with more modest overall QB numbers. The league and how hard it is makes a difference.
Don't tell me you think a 33, 34, or 35 year old Tom Brady is anything like the tough, almost indestructible football monster he was when he was dismantling the then dominant AFC game after game. That being said, today's Tom Brady is still one of the best but had he played at age 35 in the serious and brutal AFC league it was in early 2000s, he wouldn't have same numbers.
I don't think at all it's any disrespect to the great Tom Brady. But while he's a great 35 year old quarterback, and maybe the best 35 year old quarterback in NFL history, he's not the same guy who commanded full respect by taking three out of four Super Bowls in his twenties. He can never make his 30s follow his 20s (and going three for four) having already lost two Super Bowls in the first five years of his thirties. Honestly, a Super Bowl win on the good side would put him up there with a Montana, but on the bad side, it won't return the crazy good quarterback he was in 2001-2005 period. This isn't a video game where you can win in 2013 and hit reset and somehow return to the Brady of yesteryear. If Brady loses in next two games, you may hear the same uproar telling him to retire as you heard with the Bus, Lewis, Favre, and yes, Joe Montana. Maybe there's a reason most greats are out in early to mid-30s and why maybe Peyton Manning has seen his last great season. Tom Brady is only a year behind and more than anything, he has to win to shut up haters.
Credit given should be earned. It's not just how you play, but also who you play and how you navigate that.
Last edited:
The Giants played great. I wouldn't say if we had Gronk we'd have definitely won. Who knows? But I wish we had, he was one of the major weapons that put us there, and we weren't the same without him.
Personally I don't give a **** about what some random person who probably bases all his sports knowledge on Sportscenter says about Tom Brady. When he won his first Super Bowl, they said it was luck. The second was because of his defense, and all the "true greats" won three. When he won his third, he got the respect he deserved as one of the GOAT. Lose two very close, unbelievable Super Bowls, and suddenly he still has something to prove. Enough already. 7 AFC Championship games. Won 5 of them. 3 Super Bowl rings in the salary cap era.
63dot said:
Are you crazy? You really think we're effed in any way, shape or form? Do you honestly think it's easy to put up 41 points on the Houston Texans? And Brady himself will tell you that wasn't their best game.
I swear the rubric by which the Patriots are graded is different than everyone else. I guess I understand it, but it's still baffling. I mean, effed? The Patriots went 4-1 without Gronkowski.
Brady is already clearly the best among all active QBs. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't looked at all the facts or is biased against the Patriots.
Manning has more overall yards and touchdowns because he's had 2 full seasons as a starter more than Brady.
Rodgers became a starter right as the league started to go pass-happy around 2007-2008. Comparing their last 4 seasons to account for this, his rating is a little higher than Brady's (108.7 to 102.5). Their records over this time were 49-15 for Brady and 46-16 for Rodgers. He's a great quarterback but he has to prove he can keep it up for another 5+ years before we can compare him to Brady. You can't really compare a 5th year starter to an 11th year starter here.
But what it really comes down to is not stats they put up but winning games. And this is where Brady takes the cake. His career winning percentage (regular season + playoffs) is .773 (153-45) while Manning and Rodgers are both .662 (163-81) and (57-29) respectively. It's all about winning, and when it comes to that, Brady is king.
This is where our opinions differ. Brady's already in the same sentence as Montana. If he gets that 4th ring, the debate will be over. Bradshaw doesn't even belong in the discussion. Otherwise Trent Dilfer would be in the same sentence as Peyton Manning since they both have a Super Bowl ring.
Brady has 44,806 yards now and has been averaged 5,031 yards per season over the past 2 years. Assuming he keeps playing at this high level (he's shown no signs of showing down and continues to look better and better every year) he will break 55,000 in the first month of the 2015 season right after he turns 39. If Brady continues this pace for another 2 or 3 years after this, he'll own even more records. Favre's 71,838 is probably out of reach but Marino (currently 2nd) at 61,361 is entirely possible. For touchdown passes, he currently has 334, which is 5th behind Tarkenton (342), Marino (420), Manning (436) and Favre (508). At worst here he'll finish 4th behind Marino, but there's a good chance he gets close to that number once all is said and done too.
So why were you all ready to crown Denver, when they had the biggest creampuff schedule this year? All you can do is play the schedule you're given and take advantage of your opportunities. Winning the Super Bowl is more about your own team than the team you play.
63dot said:
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say with this? Maybe re-word it so it's clearer?
63dot said:
Sorry, but no. This is just an incredibly dumb statement.
63dot said:
He's never been a running QB. I'd argue he's better than ever - he makes decisions faster, he can read a defense very quickly. He's not Colin Kaepernick, being 35 doesn't diminish a large part of his game. He makes all the throws. I don't know if you know this, but he's been the conductor of the league's highest scoring offense the last few years (in his mid thirties).
Difference between the Patriots in the early 2000s and the Patriots of the last few years has been defense. Defense, defense, defense. Period, end of story.
63dot said:
Look at his stats and try to tell me, again, that he's gotten worse with age.
AND IF CREDIT IS EARNED THEN JESUS H GIVE THE MAN SOME.