REAL FOOTBALL Thread

zitothebrave said:
Are you ****ting me? Sure the second time around people thought they had a shot because of the upset they pulled. But you're lying if you thought or think there was more than a delusional giants fan who'd stop the Pats from going perfect.
Click to expand...

The Giants played them tough in week 17 and the Pats were looking progressively worse as the postseason went on and the Giants were looking better.

You are delusional if you don't think that there were plenty of non-biased observors who thought the giants would win.
 
thethe said:
The Giants played them tough in week 17 and the Pats were looking progressively worse as the postseason went on and the Giants were looking better.

You are delusional if you don't think that there were plenty of non-biased observors who thought the giants would win.
Click to expand...

You're high. Maybe 1 in 10 people predicted the Giants to win. As far as progressively worse, they blew the Jaguars out of the water and fairly comfortably beat the Chargers.

Giants comfotably beat one team in the playoffs, the bucs. They needed OT to beat GB and Dallas well they choked
 
I think zito is totally right here. Any team with talent in the NFL can make noise. The Giants were a freakin' wild card team when they beat the Pats in the SB and prevented them from perfection. They were definitely not the most talented team. No one is a lock. You're nuts if you think the 49ers or Seahawks are a lock for the NFCCG. It's way too random and crazy things happen all the time. I think the Falcons probably have a slightly less chance than those other teams. Teams rise and fall, lose games they shouldn't, suffer key injuries, etc. Nothing is guaranteed, everything is FAR from certain. The 49ers could go 10-6 really easily.
 
49ers could go 8-8 without too much insanity. I mean **** the Falcons probably beat the 49ers most likely if Harry Douglas doesn't hand the ball off to Bowman.
 
zitothebrave said:
49ers could go 8-8 without too much insanity. I mean **** the Falcons probably beat the 49ers most likely if Harry Douglas doesn't hand the ball off to Bowman.
Click to expand...

Gore could slow down, Kaep could regress, missing Bowman could prove critical. You never know year-to-year. To say either the Niners or Seahawks are a virtual lock is laughable. Do I think it will happen? I'd prob bet on one of them. But very far from a lock.
 
Azide from QB performance, which Kap shows no sign of regressing, the 49ers are much more than any one player. The depth on the team is fantastic and they consistently draft as well if not better than any team in football. I'd be willing to make any kind of bet that they at worst make the playoffs. The team is loaded and is probably the best team they've had so far.
 
NinersSBChamps said:
It's pointless man. For some reason everyone here hates the 49ers, Kaep, and Crabtree for whatever reason.

You can't talk sense into them.
Click to expand...

It's because of statements like this:

Krovahn said:
You don't take the Pats, because even with Brady, their receivers are still piss poor these last couple of years (Brady wasn't sensational last year, either). I don't take the Falcons either without Gonzo, a washed up and injured White, an over-rated Douglas, and Jones.
Click to expand...
 
thethe said:
The Giants played them tough in week 17 and the Pats were looking progressively worse as the postseason went on and the Giants were looking better.

You are delusional if you don't think that there were plenty of non-biased observors who thought the giants would win.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this isn't accurate at all. Giants were a HUGE underdog going into this game. 13 -14 point underdog according to the betting odds before the game.

The wide, wide majority thought the Pats would roll the Giants
 
thethe said:
Azide from QB performance, which Kap shows no sign of regressing, the 49ers are much more than any one player. The depth on the team is fantastic and they consistently draft as well if not better than any team in football. I'd be willing to make any kind of bet that they at worst make the playoffs. The team is loaded and is probably the best team they've had so far.
Click to expand...

The point is, you never know what's going to happen. Good teams have down-ish years because a few flukey type things happen and they lose games they shouldn't.
 
thethe said:
Azide from QB performance, which Kap shows no sign of regressing
Click to expand...

Him regressing anytime soon is probably not going to happen unless he loses his running game (tho Gore is getting up there). But, if there running game slows down, they are going to need a big jump up in performance from Kaepernick. He has yet to prove he can put the team on his back and win games consistently.
 
gilesfan said:
Him regressing anytime soon is probably not going to happen unless he loses his running game (tho Gore is getting up there). But, if there running game slows down, they are going to need a big jump up in performance from Kaepernick. He has yet to prove he can put the team on his back and win games consistently.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with the consistent part. However, he now has the best group of WR/TE that he has ever had so I believe it will happen. Kap has showed many times that he can carry the team but like you said he has yet to prove it week after week.

Kap really hasn't had the chance to work with some of these loaded groups of WR's at the same time healthy that these other great QB's have.
 
Carp said:
It's because of statements like this:
Click to expand...
What is wrong with it? Last year, Brady was rather average. 100 is average.

Brady:
Year Att Y/A+ NY/A+ AY/A+ ANY/A+ Cmp%+ TD%+ Int%+ Sack%+ Rate+
2013* 628 96 98 102 103 98 96 116 104 102

On top of simple stats, actually watching these two play it should be obvious that they were not elite last year. They both had down years. If you say otherwise, you are delusional.

Matt Ryan was even worse.

Year Att Y/A+ NY/A+ AY/A+ ANY/A+ Cmp%+ TD%+ Int%+ Sack%+ Rate+
2013 651 96 97 97 98 124 96 101 101 105

I am sorry, but being average or below it pretty much across the board is not good. Who cares what they have done in their careers; basing the receiving corps partly on QB influence, as I did, was/is largely based on where they stood at the end of last year, going into this year. Where these two were at least year was average, not elite.

I am done feeding the trolls, now.
 
Krovahn said:
What is wrong with it? Last year, Brady was rather average. 100 is average.

Brady:
Year Att Y/A+ NY/A+ AY/A+ ANY/A+ Cmp%+ TD%+ Int%+ Sack%+ Rate+
2013* 628 96 98 102 103 98 96 116 104 102

On top of simple stats, actually watching these two play it should be obvious that they were not elite last year. They both had down years. If you say otherwise, you are delusional.

Matt Ryan was even worse.

Year Att Y/A+ NY/A+ AY/A+ ANY/A+ Cmp%+ TD%+ Int%+ Sack%+ Rate+
2013 651 96 97 97 98 124 96 101 101 105

I am sorry, but being average or below it pretty much across the board is not good. Who cares what they have done in their careers; basing the receiving corps partly on QB influence, as I did, was/is largely based on where they stood at the end of last year, going into this year. Where these two were at least year was average, not elite.

I am done feeding the trolls, now.
Click to expand...

With Tom Brady's career, and the fact that he lost both TEs (one for the whole year due to murder) and the guys he was throwing to...you take his numbers last year with a grain of salt. And he still won a bunch of games.
 
yeezus said:
With Tom Brady's career, and the fact that he lost both TEs (one for the whole year due to murder) and the guys he was throwing to...you take his numbers last year with a grain of salt. And he still won a bunch of games.
Click to expand...
His numbers and performance were still down, both on paper and visually. Exactly, you take away his corps of receivers (and TEs) and he comes back down to earth. Winnings games isn't the question here, it is QB performance. Going to the originally issue of best receiving corps and then tying in QB... if Brady's numbers come back down to average (and slightly below), it is clear that the original statement of the Pats not having a top tier passing threat at this moment is an accurate assessment.
 
Krovahn said:
His numbers and performance were still down, both on paper and visually. Exactly, you take away his corps of receivers (and TEs) and he comes back down to earth. Winnings games isn't the question here, it is QB performance. Going to the originally issue of best receiving corps and then tying in QB... if Brady's numbers come back down to average (and slightly below), it is clear that the original statement of the Pats not having a top tier passing threat at this moment is an accurate assessment.
Click to expand...

Brady has never consistently had great weapons. And wins count because his team was not great, and he still won a bunch of games. He was throwing to a bunch of bums and rookies last year. No QB would have looked great or put up great numbers with his team.
 
yeezus said:
Brady has never consistently had great weapons. And wins count because his team was not great, and he still won a bunch of games. He was throwing to a bunch of bums and rookies last year. No QB would have looked great or put up great numbers with his team.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. If you call Moss, Branch, Welker, Watson, Hernandez and Gronk not great, I cannot debate with you. They were there, consistently. If you say they were great, only because of Brady... then you have to say the same thing for Harrison, Wayne, Thomas and more for Manning, etc.

I agree that no QB would look great with the WR that the Pats had last year, but a lot would have been average, if not slightly above. Brady is 36, 37 in like a week. It wouldn't be unheard of to say a QB his age is declining. If he comes back and has a great year, good for him. That doesn't change the fact that last year he played league average.
 
Krovahn said:
I have to disagree. If you call Moss, Branch, Welker, Watson, Hernandez and Gronk not great, I cannot debate with you. They were there, consistently. If you say they were great, only because of Brady... then you have to say the same thing for Harrison, Wayne, Thomas and more for Manning, etc.

I agree that no QB would look great with the WR that the Pats had last year, but a lot would have been average, if not slightly above. Brady is 36, 37 in like a week. It wouldn't be unheard of to say a QB his age is declining. If he comes back and has a great year, good for him. That doesn't change the fact that last year he played league average.
Click to expand...

Meh, whatever. Brady is a top 5 QB still today. Disagree if you'd like but you're a huge minority.
 
zitothebrave said:
Are you ****ting me? Sure the second time around people thought they had a shot because of the upset they pulled. But you're lying if you thought or think there was more than a delusional giants fan who'd stop the Pats from going perfect.
Click to expand...

Lot of people did.

Pats showed cracks in the armor late in the year and the Giants had all the momentum in the world, i wasnt all that surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top