In the past 13 years in the Superbowl...

[TuscanyTile2]

The AFC QB has been Brady, Big Ben or Peyton Manning.

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, TuscanyTile2 said:

The AFC QB has been Brady, Big Ben or Peyton Manning.

Joe Flacco broke that streak, but it is still indicative

[TuscanyTile2]

1 minute ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Joe Flacco broke that streak, but it is still indicative

All but one time I should've said.

[Anthony Jet]

......

[shawn306]

I have been saying that for at least three years.

[TuscanyTile2]

Make that 13 times in 14 years.  Brady vs Ben next week.

[SAR I]

If you draw the line at 1976, only 6 AFC teams have won the Super Bowl in the last 40 years.

If you draw the line at 1986, only 5 AFC teams have won the Super Bowl in the last 30 years.

it shows you just how futile this is.  And we thought baseball was bad with no luxury tax for all those years.  Perhaps this is what is vexing the NFL.  The fact that it's just about impossible to win a Super Bowl.  And those that are on the short-list, well, their fans are just as bored of winning as we are of losing.

SAR I

[CanadaSteve]

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

[SAR I]

4 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

The Steelers are the only team that has a "keep one coach for 20 years" doctrine.

Your other examples all had head coaching revolving doors just like the Jets before they stumbled onto Hall Of Fame quarterbacks in Manning, Elway, and Brady.

Todd Bowles could go 13-3 with this very Jets team if he had Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady.  Let's not be silly here.

SAR I

[rex-n-effect]

13 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

If we'd only given Kotite more time...

[JohnnyLV]

37 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

not that simple

[TuscanyTile2]

9 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

During the Tony Dorsett era, the announcers used to always bring up a stat about how when he runs for 100+ yards, the Cowboys (almost) always win.  So some might've inferred "if that's the winning formula, then why not just hand it to him every down until he gets 100 yards?" 

That's what your argument reminds me of. 

[The Crusher]

9 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

Only because they are always full of crap

[jamesr]

1 minute ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

During the Tony Dorsett era, the announcers used to always bring up a stat about how when he runs for 100+ yards, the Cowboys (almost) always win.  So some might've inferred "if that's the winning formula, then why not just hand it to him every down until he gets 100 yards?" 

That's what your argument reminds me of. 

I agree - most of those organisations have had pretty continuous success over the years, making coaching changes much less likely to happen. Cause vs. effect.

It's like saying that if we hang on to Bowles for 20 years we'll eventually win a Superbowl with him.

The real crux of the matter is - the successful teams like NE, Pitt etc are operating from the point of view of sustaining success. That's quite a bit different from the other teams that are trying to build success. Expectations are more fair, patience is much higher (both fans and owners) - not saying it's easy, I'm sure it's got its own challenges, but the situations are very different.

No-one would fire Belichick for a 5-11 season, but Bowles has no past successes to fall back on. Even last year's 10-6 is being discredited / ripped apart in order to support the narrative that he sucks.

[Obrien2Toon]

That stat is unbelievable.

After seeing what is happening with the chargers, it all comes down to ownership.

Losing franchises usually have loser owners

[Tinstar]

10 minutes ago, jamesr said:

I agree - most of those organisations have had pretty continuous success over the years, making coaching changes much less likely to happen. Cause vs. effect.

It's like saying that if we hang on to Bowles for 20 years we'll eventually win a Superbowl with him.

The real crux of the matter is - the successful teams like NE, Pitt etc are operating from the point of view of sustaining success. That's quite a bit different from the other teams that are trying to build success. Expectations are more fair, patience is much higher (both fans and owners) - not saying it's easy, I'm sure it's got its own challenges, but the situations are very different.

No-one would fire Belichick for a 5-11 season, but Bowles has no past successes to fall back on. Even last year's 10-6 is being discredited / ripped apart in order to support the narrative that he sucks.

Just imagine if he didn't have that  ?

[nyjunc]

9 hours ago, SAR I said:

If you draw the line at 1976, only 6 AFC teams have won the Super Bowl in the last 40 years.

If you draw the line at 1986, only 5 AFC teams have won the Super Bowl in the last 30 years.

it shows you just how futile this is.  And we thought baseball was bad with no luxury tax for all those years.  Perhaps this is what is vexing the NFL.  The fact that it's just about impossible to win a Super Bowl.  And those that are on the short-list, well, their fans are just as bored of winning as we are of losing.

SAR I

football, basketball and hockey were all worse as far as competitive balance than MLB but people loved to whine about MLB for some reason.

[nyjunc]

9 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

Broncos had 2 while Peyton was there, started w/ Fox and won SB w/ Kubiak but peyton was a shell of himself and along for the ride for last year's SB.  

[JustInFudge]

16 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

The AFC QB has been Brady, Big Ben or Peyton Manning.

Yeah but parody and stuff.  lol  The NFL is such a pile of sh*t. 

That said, is there anything else you need to know about this league when you see that stat?  If you dont have a QB, you're irrelevant.  There really isnt even a reason for team without a QB to play the season.  Just sit it out, keep everyone healthy and start playing you have a QB. 

Look at the playoffs this year, in every single instance, the better QB's team won.  

 

[ASH1962]

9 hours ago, rex-n-effect said:

9 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

If we'd only given Kotite more time...

We are ....

[rangerous]

40 minutes ago, Obrien2Toon said:

That stat is unbelievable.

After seeing what is happening with the chargers, it all comes down to ownership.

Losing franchises usually have loser owners

wouldn't exactly say loser owners.  the real problem is losing organizational structures and the people making the decisions.  jerry jones went quite a few sesons without winning until his team was finally able to break through this season.  the giaiants have been pretty successful since george young was made gm but at the same time the maras and the teams owners were pretty inept at making the decisions. the rooney's in pittsburgh had the laughingstock of the nfl until they finally hired noll back in the late sixties. and the patsies put together a really good organization at the top even though the management is riddled with krafts.

with the jets the problem seems to be there's woody and then there mac and bowles.  woody needs some separation.

[Beerfish]

At least we know the era of 2020 and on will feature Hackenburg in there for at least 3 or 4 times.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

During the Tony Dorsett era, the announcers used to always bring up a stat about how when he runs for 100+ yards, the Cowboys (almost) always win.  So some might've inferred "if that's the winning formula, then why not just hand it to him every down until he gets 100 yards?" 

That's what your argument reminds me of. 

Oddly enough that was what Parcells said when he was here. I think it was after his first season, when he was trying to keep up the facade that he was going to keep both Adrian Murrell and Curtis Martin. Something about whatever high percentage of winning teams (or playoff teams) ran the ball 500x, so therefore we were going to run the ball 500x. Genius logic. Ray Lucas kneeling on the ball to end the last regular season game was the 500th "carry" so obviously that's why we won 12 games.

[nyjbuddy]

14 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

Marvin Lewis has been with Cincinnati for 14 years and though he has gotten them to the playoffs 7 times in those 14 years.  He has failed to win a playoff game.

[TuscanyTile2]

3 minutes ago, nyjbuddy said:

Marvin Lewis has been with Cincinnati for 14 years and though he has gotten them to the playoffs 7 times in those 14 years.  He has failed to win a playoff game.

Obviously they need to show a little more patience with him 

[NYJ37/12]

fixed league

[CanadaSteve]

On 2017-01-16 at 9:05 AM, TuscanyTile2 said:

During the Tony Dorsett era, the announcers used to always bring up a stat about how when he runs for 100+ yards, the Cowboys (almost) always win.  So some might've inferred "if that's the winning formula, then why not just hand it to him every down until he gets 100 yards?" 

That's what your argument reminds me of. 

You guys can disagree, but it all starts with cohesion, and that comes from continuity....something you can NEVER have when you change coaches every 3-4 years.  Is it a coincidence that the most successful franchises ALWAYS hire the exact right coach every time they do finally make a coaching change?  I doubt it.  Hire a good GM, who hires a good coach, who hires good supporting staff, and you are off to the races.  THEN you build a team, and let them play more than a couple of years until you decide to blow it all up because "THEY SUCK" becomes the all-too familiar chant.

[RutgersJetFan]

My best friend is a Steelers fan and I was trying to explain this to him on Sunday after the Chiefs lost. He was all excited to watch the Pats game and I couldn't have been more lukewarm. Tried explaining that this isn't even frustrating anymore, it's just boring. There is no parity in this damn league at all. It's the same teams literally every single year. I was rooting for a KC/Atlanta SB for no other reason than to just watch something different for a change.

And it would be one thing if it were due to greatness, but it's not. Neither the Steelers nor the Pats are that great and it's not like Brady and Ben have had amazing seasons or postseasons. They are beneficiaries of circumstance. The league has become washed out, absurdly top-heavy, and skewed so much towards one position because of rule change after rule change that this is what we get now. It sucks and worse off it's boring.

[section314]

11 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

My best friend is a Steelers fan and I was trying to explain this to him on Sunday after the Chiefs lost. He was all excited to watch the Pats game and I couldn't have been more lukewarm. Tried explaining that this isn't even frustrating anymore, it's just boring. There is no parity in this damn league at all. It's the same teams literally every single year. I was rooting for a KC/Atlanta SB for no other reason than to just watch something different for a change.

And it would be one thing if it were due to greatness, but it's not. Neither the Steelers nor the Pats are that great and it's not like Brady and Ben have had amazing seasons or postseasons. They are beneficiaries of circumstance. The league has become washed out, absurdly top-heavy, and skewed so much towards one position because of rule change after rule change that this is what we get now. It sucks and worse off it's boring.

A true cynic would say Roger Godell works for FanDuel.

[AdrianMurrel]

On 1/16/2017 at 9:45 AM, JiF said:

Yeah but parody and stuff.  lol  The NFL is such a pile of sh*t. 

That said, is there anything else you need to know about this league when you see that stat?  If you dont have a QB, you're irrelevant.  There really isnt even a reason for team without a QB to play the season.  Just sit it out, keep everyone healthy and start playing you have a QB. 

Look at the playoffs this year, in every single instance, the better QB's team won.  

 

The irony is a hardcap breeds parity because teams change drastically year to year. And playoff teams do change drastically every year in the NFL  so there is parity with playoff teams 

But the same teams with great qbs win it every year because of the rules that are now geared towards the offense heavily. 

So without a franchise qb you may catch lightning in a bottle one year if you have a great defense but you won't have any sustained success.

With a franchise qb you're a contender every year for a decade. Without one even if you build your team perfectly every other way your window to contend with a hardcap is about 2-3 years because the caps gonna destroy your team. Only having a great qb can mask those other weaknesses 

[munchmemory]

On 1/15/2017 at 11:57 PM, CanadaSteve said:

Pittsburgh: 2 coaches....and that many because Cowher retired

Pats: 1 coach

Colts: 3 coaches, but 2 while Peyton was there

Broncos: 1 coach while Peyton was there.

BUT....we like to change coaches like underwear.

 

Only because they all stank worse than a filthy pair after a two week camping trip.

[HoustonJet]

Very interesting stat. And to think the NFL is one of the fairest leagues where every year bad teams are rewarded with the best college players, plus an easier schedule based on prior poor performance. The NFL has become boring and predictable and I swear if the patriots go to the Super Bowl this year, I'm not watching it, not out of jealousy but I'll have zero interest.

[SAR I]

17 minutes ago, HoustonJet said:

Very interesting stat. And to think the NFL is one of the fairest leagues where every year bad teams are rewarded with the best college players, plus an easier schedule based on prior poor performance. The NFL has become boring and predictable and I swear if the patriots go to the Super Bowl this year, I'm not watching it, not out of jealousy but I'll have zero interest.

Problem is that in their effort to make the NFL more of a wide-open and exciting sport they have placed far too much emphasis on the quarterback position.  And with so few franchise-caliber quarterbacks available it has made the league a joke. 

In essence, 29 NFL teams masturbate for 16 weeks just so Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger have something to do until January.

With no hope going into the season, 29 NFL fanbases get frustrated and with no one to stop them the other 3 NFL fanbases get bored and the entire sport is reduced to those who play fantasy football or gamble.  I've been a huge fan for 35 years and if they can lose someone like me, it's a real problem.  Maybe bump-and-run coverage and no roughing-the-passer penalties wasn't such a bad idea, gave teams without a Hall Of Fame quarterback a chance to win now and then.

SAR I