Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

NFL Football 2010/2011 Season

Status
Not open for further replies.
It didn't take long for the Jets to act. I think the Jets handled this appropriately.

ESPN.com said:
Later Monday, the Jets suspended Alosi without pay for the remainder of the season, including any post-season games, and also fined him $25,000. He will begin serving his suspension immediately and have no access to the team's practice facility.
Click to expand...

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=5915776
 
MacDawg said:
^^^^
I agree in general about great (not good) defenses, like the SuperBowl Ravens, Bears, etc.

But I disagree about the Falcons killing the Pats in a SuperBowl
I am not sure the Birds can hang with them with OUR defense
Click to expand...

The birds are in a tough position. Brady, like Favre just a few years ago, is putting up great numbers for just one more before it all ends, and many are hoping he gets his 4th ring and be in the same company as his childhood hero, Joe Montana and also of course, Bradshaw. Whether Brady ever sees another SB win is up for debate, but either way, he will be seen as possibly the best of his class/generation. Some say it's Manning, but either way, the early/mid 2000s had two really amazing AFC QBs (and probably the best two QBs in the NFL for five or six years running).

But then look at the reality of the weapons Brady has now vs. what he had in his three SB run in four years. Hope that Brady has the same protection as those years when he had all day to throw the ball. The guy simply can't afford to take a big hit (and neither can Favre or Manning). The Pats are just one sack away from total ruin.

Atlanta is deeper than just one great player. And the talent in Atlanta is spread out. They are the cat who has nine lives, while a Pats or Indy are on their last life getting what they can from their sure to be Hall of Famer. Sure those two AFC teams can still shine, but they can't afford a hit to their QB. While Atlanta losing their QB would be bad, they have the best receiver in football and it gives Atlanta some hope there.

Also when you look at what is outside your town a pretty much unknown team, there has to be something amazing happening on the coaching staff for the Falcons. I assume the Falcons have real depth with their coaches as well as their players.

The bad part of course is that many are going to expect Atlanta to be in the SB and probably win and that type of pressure can be big and trip up a team. I think when the Pats were seeing a perfect season and a perfect postseason making them like the perfect Dolphins, the pressure made the Pats choke on some level.

I wouldn't want to have the pressure of having America expect a SB win as well as be looking over ones shoulder at the defending SB champs within the same division.

I can't think of any team that has more riding on its shoulders than Atlanta. They have more than lived up to the hype in the regular season but will they continue in the postseason?
 
Last edited:
The poor Texans. They've had some real tough losses this year in games that could have easily gone their way, but didn't. It's almost like their "snake bit" this year. :(
 
mscriv said:
The poor Texans. They've had some real tough losses this year in games that could have easily gone their way, but didn't. It's almost like their "snake bit" this year. :(
Click to expand...

No joke. I'm sitting in an office building about 10 miles from Reliant and when Schaub threw that pick 6, all we heard was the sound of groaning. They just find a different, heartbreaking way to lose every week.
 
63dot said:
The birds are in a tough position. Brady, like Favre just a few years ago, is putting up great numbers for just one more before it all ends,
Click to expand...

oh come on. Brett favre put up his "great numbers" trying to get one more before he retired last year. He was 40. Brady is 33. He is putting up some of the best numbers we've ever seen by a quarterback. He's totally in his prime, and probably will be this good for the next couple of years. He's got the potential (depends totally on the team around him) to win a couple more rings before he retires. He's that good.

and many are hoping he gets his 4th ring and be in the same company as his childhood hero, Joe Montana and also of course, Bradshaw. Whether Brady ever sees another SB win is up for debate, but either way, he will be seen as possibly the best of his class/generation. Some say it's Manning, but either way, the early/mid 2000s had two really amazing AFC QBs (and probably the best two QBs in the NFL for five or six years running).
Click to expand...

By the time they have retired, Brady will have separated himself enough from Manning to be the clear #1.

But then look at the reality of the weapons Brady has now vs. what he had in his three SB run in four years. Hope that Brady has the same protection as those years when he had all day to throw the ball. The guy simply can't afford to take a big hit (and neither can Favre or Manning). The Pats are just one sack away from total ruin.
Click to expand...

Brady's guys in his Super Bowl years (# of SBs): Troy Brown (3), Kevin Faulk (3), Jermaine Wiggins (1), Antowain Smith (2), JR Redmond (1), David Patten (1), Patrick Pass (3), David Givens (2), Christian Fauria (2), Daniel Graham (2), Deion Branch (2), Corey Dillon (1)

Brady's guys now: Welker (only returning starter), Branch (first time playing with him since 2006), Tate (a 2nd year guy who's essentially a rookie because he played like 2 games last year before going on IR), Hernandez (Rookie), Gronkowski (Rookie), Green-Ellis (Undrafted), Woodhead (Undrafted)

He's doing it with a bunch of no-name guys (aside from Branch and Welker). What he's doing this year is absolutely incredible. In his last 5 games:

1572 yds (314.4 per game), 15 td, 0 int.
All 5 games he's had a QB rating of 113.4 or higher.

I can't wait to see what they do next year when all of these rookies have a year under their belts.
 
zioxide said:
oh come on. Brett favre put up his "great numbers" trying to get one more before he retired last year. He was 40. Brady is 33. He is putting up some of the best numbers we've ever seen by a quarterback. He's totally in his prime, and probably will be this good for the next couple of years. He's got the potential (depends totally on the team around him) to win a couple more rings before he retires. He's that good.



By the time they have retired, Brady will have separated himself enough from Manning to be the clear #1.



Brady's guys in his Super Bowl years (# of SBs): Troy Brown (3), Kevin Faulk (3), Jermaine Wiggins (1), Antowain Smith (2), JR Redmond (1), David Patten (1), Patrick Pass (3), David Givens (2), Christian Fauria (2), Daniel Graham (2), Deion Branch (2), Corey Dillon (1)

Brady's guys now: Welker (only returning starter), Branch (first time playing with him since 2006), Tate (a 2nd year guy who's essentially a rookie because he played like 2 games last year before going on IR), Hernandez (Rookie), Gronkowski (Rookie), Green-Ellis (Undrafted), Woodhead (Undrafted)

He's doing it with a bunch of no-name guys (aside from Branch and Welker). What he's doing this year is absolutely incredible. In his last 5 games:

1572 yds (314.4 per game), 15 td, 0 int.
All 5 games he's had a QB rating of 113.4 or higher.

I can't wait to see what they do next year when all of these rookies have a year under their belts.
Click to expand...

Do you watch football or the history of it? 33 is no spring chicken in this sport. ;)

Brady is putting up a great late career (if next year, or a year or two after that is it) and can get two more rings. And not only that, he can do it back to back like Elway did.

It's early yet to say he's separated himself from Manning. Look at the yards and TDs. If you count SB appearances, yes, then it's 4-2. But if you look at the overall QB, the two are both the best in their class. As much as I hate to say it, Brady has yet to put up a pace or numbers of a Favre. And it's too early to put Brady in the same sentence as a Bradshaw or Montana. Brady's three SB wins were only by 3 points. Look at how the Raiders or Niners usually handled their SB rivals. Look at how Aikman and the Cowboys aced their competition.

Brady (and Manning) are the best from 2000-2009 decade, no doubt. Are either the best ever? I don't think so, yet.

I still have a hard time imagining Brady and his unknowns taking on Atlanta. Look who Atlanta has beaten. Look at the NFC this season. If Brady and company beats Atlanta in the SB and Atlanta is, let's say, a 14 game winner this season, then it will be safe to say Brady is the best ever. By then he will have 4 rings plus an extra SB appearance to boot, too. Nobody has done that and if his rating stays in the 90s when he retires, he will be the QB for all time.

Between now and that point, it's a long, hard road.

With football and the press, it's about what is the blonde bombshell or flavor of the month. One it's Sanchez, then Vick, the next it's Atlanta, but this year could be the year of the Pats. Just don't forget all who came before the Pats, Atlanta, and Sanchez (or Favre or Vick) and realize to get a best-ever moniker, you have to separate yourself from the best in history and football has been around a long time.
 
Last edited:
63dot said:
I still have a hard time imagining Brady and his unknowns taking on Atlanta. If Brady and company beats Atlanta in the SB and Atlanta is, let's say, a 14 game winner this season, then it will be safe to say Brady is the best ever.
Click to expand...

You give the Birds far more credit than I do. The Falcons are a good team, but not a great team.

Their defense is middle of the road average. Abraham is a situational pass rusher, but there are few if any true impact players on defense, and as you have noted, defense wins championships.

The offense is solid and consistent with a great balance of running and passing. They can line up and run power or spread you out. Roddy White is one of the better receivers in the league and is money on 3rd down. The other receivers aren't too shabby either, but they are blue collar. Gonzales is at the end of his career, but he can still catch the ball and block. Turner is a productive back and can get in the end zone.

However, as I said, they are a good team, not a great team. Their record is a product of their consistency, not their dominance. They win by sustained drives, no penalties, no turnovers and staying close at the end. They have a ton of late game wins for that very reason. They are not hot and cold, up and down. They reflect their coach and they have a calm consistency. It is the perfect team for Matt Ryan and while his stats are not high, his leadership and clutch performance outweigh any stats.

The Falcons can be beaten by any of the top tier teams on any Sunday. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia both beat them with backup QBs. Michael Vick will give them fits. Drew Brees can light up their defense. If the Giants are patient and don't turn the ball over, they can win. And Brady and Co. can most definitely give them a beat down.

The Falcons have a long road to travel before they make it to the Super Bowl. The Monday night game with New Orleans will be a huge test for them. If it turns out to be a Falcons v. Patriots Super Bowl, I will root for the Birds, but I would put my money on Brady and Belichick.
 
MacDawg said:
You give the Birds far more credit than I do. The Falcons are a good team, but not a great team.
Click to expand...

Out here in California, you guys are being compared to the early-'80s 49ers on ABC radio. You have a lot of similarities to the then unknown 1981 SF team with Joe Montana and a cool headed, methodical offense and defense.

Being hot and cold will kill you when it comes to Super Bowls and the 49ers very even headed philosophy along with their use of new talent every year has made them go 5 for 5 in Super Bowls. Nobody has done this and nobody ever will. Consistency is key and Atlanta has every mark of a next '81-'99 49ers type dynasty. Of course, coaching philosophy would have to remain the same.

And just when we thought we could take a third decade into the W column, SF got lazy and forgot their roots. We didn't mix up the receivers or spread out the field. We didn't play ball control or realize the importance of third downs. We forgot about being like a tough East Coast defense. And look what happened. Only the Cowboys and their overall 22 year winning streak and 5 SB appearances and armful of division wins, and especially in the Landry-Staubach days, is seen as a longer football dynasty.

Atlanta is the perfect storm, but not just them but the NFC South. You guys right now are what the NFC East used to be with Philly, Dallas, Washington, and NY tearing up NFC championships and other NFC teams with a vengeance.

We are seeing the last breath of Brady and Manning and even though those are the faces I see on the rack at Borders in magazines and sports books, they are the old guard. Yes, maybe a ring for Manning and Brady before they go, but the fulcrum of the NFL will now be the NFC South for the next few years, and possibly the next ten years. TB came first with a ring, then NO and their kicking off of a curse, and I think it's your turn. Carolina came close. The NFC South is downright scary.
 
Umm. Dallas has been to more then just five super bowls. They have won five but have been to 7 or 9 of them. Pulling from memory here.

Also, heck of a Monday night game!

63dot said:
Out here in California, you guys are being compared to the early-'80s 49ers on ABC radio. You have a lot of similarities to the then unknown 1981 SF team with Joe Montana and a cool headed, methodical offense and defense.

Being hot and cold will kill you when it comes to Super Bowls and the 49ers very even headed philosophy along with their use of new talent every year has made them go 5 for 5 in Super Bowls. Nobody has done this and nobody ever will. Consistency is key and Atlanta has every mark of a next '81-'99 49ers type dynasty. Of course, coaching philosophy would have to remain the same.

And just when we thought we could take a third decade into the W column, SF got lazy and forgot their roots. We didn't mix up the receivers or spread out the field. We didn't play ball control or realize the importance of third downs. We forgot about being like a tough East Coast defense. And look what happened. Only the Cowboys and their overall 22 year winning streak and 5 SB appearances and armful of division wins, and especially in the Landry-Staubach days, is seen as a longer football dynasty.

Atlanta is the perfect storm, but not just them but the NFC South. You guys right now are what the NFC East used to be with Philly, Dallas, Washington, and NY tearing up NFC championships and other NFC teams with a vengeance.

We are seeing the last breath of Brady and Manning and even though those are the faces I see on the rack at Borders in magazines and sports books, they are the old guard. Yes, maybe a ring for Manning and Brady before they go, but the fulcrum of the NFL will now be the NFC South for the next few years, and possibly the next ten years. TB came first with a ring, then NO and their kicking off of a curse, and I think it's your turn. Carolina came close. The NFC South is downright scary.
Click to expand...
 
rhett7660 said:
Umm. Dallas has been to more then just five super bowls. They have won five but have been to 7 or 9 of them. Pulling from memory here.

Also, heck of a Monday night game!
Click to expand...

I was talking about the streak Dallas had largely in the 1960s and 1970s with five SB appearances, two SB wins, and tons of division titles, all in the context of a 20+ year team of winners.

SF came close to that with 18 1/2 seasons being pretty darn good until Steve Young got hurt.

But what's just as amazing is that after the near 22 year winning streak of Dallas mostly in the 1960s and 1970s, they lay low for a decade during the 1980s, but then came back into another dynasty with three SB wins in 3 tries in the 1990s. They had two distinct dynasties and I think they are headed for a third string of really good years of winning seasons, division titles, and hopefully SB apperances.

A dynasty doesn't have to be SB wins, either and some may discount Dallas in their first five SB attempts because they lost three of them. But realize most teams don't even get into the playoffs on any given year.
 
Last edited:
63dot said:
I was talking about the streak Dallas had largely in the 1960s and 1970s with five SB appearances, two SB wins, and tons of division titles, all in the context of a 20+ year team of winners.

SF came close to that with 18 1/2 seasons being pretty darn good until Steve Young got hurt.

But what's just as amazing is that after the near 22 year winning streak of Dallas mostly in the 1960s and 1970s, they lay low for a decade during the 1980s, but then came back into another dynasty with three SB wins in 3 tries in the 1990s. They had two distinct dynasties and I think they are headed for a third string of really good years of winning seasons, division titles, and hopefully SB apperances.

A dynasty doesn't have to be SB wins, either and some may discount Dallas in their first five SB attempts because they lost three of them. But realize most teams don't even get into the playoffs on any given year.
Click to expand...

My bad..... I understand now! :)
 
If I had to bet money right now, it would be on the Pats
While their defense isn't great, when they put you down by 2 TDs or more you abandon your game plan and become one dimensional

After that, the field is wide open and a half dozen teams are capable of getting hot and winning it all
 
MacDawg said:
If I had to bet money right now, it would be on the Pats
While their defense isn't great, when they put you down by 2 TDs or more you abandon your game plan and become one dimensional

After that, the field is wide open and a half dozen teams are capable of getting hot and winning it all
Click to expand...

If I had to bet based on last week and the Super Bowl was this Sunday, it's the Pats, but if I had to bet on a team right after that one huge game Vick had, it would have been the Eagles as much as I don't like Vick. But for the entire season in context of who played who, it's the Saints or Falcons I vote for in the SB.

At the end of the season, this could change and maybe the Bucs, Jets, Steelers, or Bears may be the ones to favor to win it all. This is what makes the very short regular season of football so interesting. Baseball seems a safer bet where you can look back on many games to get a more accurate picture, but football can come down to one good sack. Heck, a key player of a top team (I can't remember who), basically fell in an awkward way without getting hit and sustained a pretty bad injury and had to be helped off the field. The announcer said what people don't realize is how common non-hit injuries are even though they seem bizarre and very unlucky.

My vote goes for the Pats at this moment if the SB was played this Sunday assuming the opponent was not one with a strong and varied offense. If the offense the Pats had to face was great, but one dimensional like just one great RB or one great receiver, then the Pats could slide by on having a bad or mediocre defense.
 
rhett7660 said:
Pats...hands down if the super bowl was this Sunday.
Click to expand...

What is so interesting about the season, and sometimes December, is that there is almost a guarantee that every top team will have a health issue, or if not that, a top player on each team that is doing well will hit a late slump.

The slump, whether it's caused by cumulative small injuries, or the pressure of having to win most or all of that month, or both, attacks players and teams at the weirdest and most important times.

I think it's possible the Jets are in a slump right now, even though their overall record is good. They led the AFC east and now it appears their best hope is a wild card. When they led the east, they looked like the only team in the AFC with any momentum to play the very tough NFC teams which were all vying for position and killing it on the field.

For the Pats to win when SB times comes around, besides having to win their playoff games of course, is that they tighten up their D and get ready for the big game. The best offense in the world does not cover up for a bad defense in the Super Bowl. Players know this is the last game and they go all out. Running backs go full force knowing if they get injured they have a full offseason to recover. This becomes apparent on third downs. QBs are not afraid to air it out and usually have better passing days than usual. What makes a QB have interceptions is usually ironed out by the team by the end of the season and receivers know where they have to be.

Assuming their offense is still at their early to mid December peak and assuming they improve their defense, then they have a chance against whoever represents the NFC.

I think the Pats will come in with two extra motivations if they make the Super Bowl. First, they have to get over their last appearance there when they were expected to win but then were outplayed by the Giants. Secondly, they want to give one more ring to Brady, who some feel was robbed in the last Super Bowl.

Brady was set to get a 4th ring in 4 tries like Montana and Bradshaw, but what seemed like destiny didn't happen and the Pats suffered the worst upset SB defeat of all time. I didn't even watch the early part of the game since some odds makers had the Pats at a 17 point advantage. Win or lose, I expected the Pats to get at least 28 points. Those Pats were undefeated and the best that team has ever produced with their top offense and very physical defense. This Pats team is also good but not the same team as the undefeated one.
 
So, with the way things have worked out for Vick so far this season, what do you guys think is next for him? Are the Eagles sold on him and will they offer a big contract to keep him in Philadelphia? Will he work the free agent market and make his own decision, much like Cliff Lee just did? If he does hit the free agent market where might he go? There's been rumors throughout the year of various teams that could be interested like the Vikings, Raiders, Panthers, 49ers, Dolphins, Bills, etc. etc. ???
 
mscriv said:
So, with the way things have worked out for Vick so far this season, what do you guys think is next for him? Are the Eagles sold on him and will they offer a big contract to keep him in Philadelphia? Will he work the free agent market and make his own decision, much like Cliff Lee just did? If he does hit the free agent market where might he go? There's been rumors throughout the year of various teams that could be interested like the Vikings, Raiders, Panthers, 49ers, Dolphins, Bills, etc. etc. ???
Click to expand...

I think he would be foolish to leave the Eagles
They gave him his shot and they are open to him
They are a good team with an opportunity to win

Edit:
Headline for AJC.com: Mike Vick wants a dog
 
Last edited:
63dot said:
I think it's possible the Jets are in a slump right now, even though their overall record is good. They led the AFC east and now it appears their best hope is a wild card. When they led the east, they looked like the only team in the AFC with any momentum to play the very tough NFC teams which were all vying for position and killing it on the field.
Click to expand...

A slump? You have to have been good at one point to slump. They suck. They haven't proved **** and they are lucky they aren't 7-6 right now. Let's stop giving a team so much credit when they haven't won ANYTHING (not even the division) since 2002. Everyone is loving the dirty sanchez kool aid.

Assuming their offense is still at their early to mid December peak and assuming they improve their defense, then they have a chance against whoever represents the NFC.
Click to expand...

That D looked pretty good against the dirty sanchez and the vaunted jets offense two mondays ago.

Brady was set to get a 4th ring in 4 tries like Montana and Bradshaw, but what seemed like destiny didn't happen and the Pats suffered the worst upset SB defeat of all time.
Click to expand...
can i have some of your kool aid? worst defeat of all time? they lost by 3 points because the refs missed two holding calls and some nobody caught a ball with his ****ing helmet. it definitely wasn't a huge blowout.

This Pats team is also good but not the same team as the undefeated one.
Click to expand...

You are right. This one is better. Much younger and faster defense who are getting better by the week (Look at that turnover differential :p) The 2007 team was supposed to be that good. This year's isn't. That's why they are doing better. Plus every day that they come in to work the first thing Belichick does is make fun of them for losing to Cleveland. There's some motivation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back