Remember when

[chirorob]

Like a year ago, Mathew Stafford was over rated because he could never win a playoff game.

Now he is a career 4-3 in the playoffs with a big shiny ring.

[Warfish]

The very definition of “don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good enough”.

[Jet_Engine1]

11 minutes ago, Warfish said:

The very definition of “don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good enough”.

I always heard it as "Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough".

 

But yes. 

[Barry McCockinner]

It's almost like it's a team sport.

[Peace Frog]

DJ Montgomery disagrees. 

[Hex]

That's a good way to sum up his 13 year Lions career

Went from winless in the playoffs to over .500 in them in one season after changing teams

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

Stafford should be the example of why Eli Manning is not a HOF QB.  Football is a team sport and so many things besides the QBs impact who wins and loses playoff and SB games.  Tom Brady could easily have no SB wins by changing one play in either his SB wins or games leading to the SB.  

[Barry McCockinner]

Just now, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Stafford should be the example of why Eli Manning is not a HOF QB.  Football is a team sport and so many things impact besides the QBs impact who wins and loses playoff and SB games.  Tom Brady could easily have no SB wins by changing one play in either his SB wins or games leading to the SB.  

Brady had a top 10 defense for most, if not all of his Superbowl wins. Great QB, but he benefited greatly from the team around him. He made the most of those opportunities - which is part of why he's great. But it was never Brady vs. whatever QB like people always frame it. 

[varjet]

But on the other hand, it does challenge the notion that all you need is a QB.  The Rams mortgaged their future, built a roster and then got the QB and won the SB. 

The Bucs did something very similar, but in their case they did not have to trade for the QB-they signed him.  

I like what the Bucs did better.  

[TuscanyTile2]

I think we can safely say that there's no "formula".  Just let JD draft great players and we'll go from there.

[nycdan]

3 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Brady had a top 10 defense for most, if not all of his Superbowl wins. Great QB, but he benefited greatly from the team around him. He made the most of those opportunities - which is part of why he's great. But it was never Brady vs. whatever QB like people always frame it. 

There are two games I can specifically think of where it felt exactly like 2 QBs slugging it out to the death.

O'Brien vs. Marino - 1986

Mahomes vs. Allen - 2022

In both of those games, it was like the rest of the 20 players were just there to watch.

[Adoni Beast]

This is why football is labelled as the "ultimate team sport." 

[docdhc]

5 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Brady had a top 10 defense for most, if not all of his Superbowl wins. Great QB, but he benefited greatly from the team around him. He made the most of those opportunities - which is part of why he's great. But it was never Brady vs. whatever QB like people always frame it. 

Brady was incredibly clutch. When he had to make a drive to win a big game he almost always did, unlike Rodgers so many times, or Burrow on that last drive last night. Even those 2 losses to the Giants he had put his team ahead late in the game. That is what I think separates the great ones in general and Brady in particular. 

[The Crusher]

5 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

I think we can safely say that there's no "formula".  Just let JD draft great players and we'll go from there.

Can we still bitch about though? If we can’t, then count me out. 

[Barry McCockinner]

1 hour ago, docdhc said:

Brady was incredibly clutch. When he had to make a drive to win a big game he almost always did, unlike Rodgers so many times, or Burrow on that last drive last night. Even those 2 losses to the Giants he had put his team ahead late in the game. That is what I think separates the great ones in general and Brady in particular. 

You're not wrong. But if he were on a different team his entire career, let's just say ... I don't know, the Lions ... he probably wouldn't have won jack because he never would have had the opportunity. He excelled at taking advantage of the opportunities he was put in.

[Jimmy 2 Times]

1 hour ago, The Crusher said:

Can we still bitch about though? If we can’t, then count me out. 

It'll be about how we didn't win by enough. 

[freestater]

Boy the way Glenn Miller played,

Songs that made the hit parade,

Guys like us, we had it made,

Those we're the days....

[GangGreened]

Winning in the playoffs is difficult. Amazing that Sanchez has 4 road Ws that he actually played well enough in 

[jetstream23]

12 hours ago, nycdan said:

There are two games I can specifically think of where it felt exactly like 2 QBs slugging it out to the death.

O'Brien vs. Marino - 1986

Mahomes vs. Allen - 2022

In both of those games, it was like the rest of the 20 players were just there to watch.

Brady vs. Foles in that 2018 Super Bowl.

0 punts

[Hex]

35 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

Brady vs. Foles in that 2018 Super Bowl.

0 punts

That was only 4 years ago

Now, Brady is retired and Foles is struggling to get a job as a backup

How the world has changed in such a short time frame

[jeremy2020]

58 minutes ago, Hex said:

That was only 4 years ago

Now, Brady is retired and Foles is struggling to get a job as a backup

How the world has changed in such a short time frame

..but it takes a decade to build a team that can even make the playoffs apparently

[WestCoastMole]

1 hour ago, jeremy2020 said:

..but it takes a decade to build a team that can even make the playoffs apparently

You can build a winner quickly if you don't mind mortgaging the future. Parcells was a master of that in his last half dozen years running the show. He also became a master of knowing when to get out.

[jamesr]

On a related note ...

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

Remember when , we beat the colts 41-0 in a HOME PLAYOFF GAME . This is more rare than a unicorn .

[Biggs]

21 hours ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Stafford should be the example of why Eli Manning is not a HOF QB.  Football is a team sport and so many things besides the QBs impact who wins and loses playoff and SB games.  Tom Brady could easily have no SB wins by changing one play in either his SB wins or games leading to the SB.  

Except the Giants don't sniff a SB without Eli playing great in two playoff runs.  The Rams don't sniff a  SB with Goff as the QB this past year.  It's a two way street.  You need a good enough team but you also need really good QB play to win 4 playoff games and get the SB win. 

Stafford is an example of a very good QB who will probably get into the HOF because he won a SB.  Dan Marino didn't play on good enough teams but Dan Marino was a generationally great QB.

The HOF has all kinds of players in it.  Truly elite great players.  Players who compiled great stats for a long time.  Players who were absolutely the best for a short time and several  good players who played on championship teams.

Players who play great in the playoffs against elite competition and are on winning SB teams set themselves apart.  SB MVP's set themselves apart.  MVP's set themselves apart.  Stat compilers set themselves apart.  Guys who passed the eye test as better than the other guys set themselves apart.  

The HOF has lots of different guys in for lots of different reasons.   I suspect Winston Hill got in because when you look at tape of SB3 he was the most dominating player on the field against a historically great D.   Joe Namath is in because of the SB.  

[TuscanyTile2]

9 minutes ago, SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN said:

Remember when , we beat the colts 41-0 in a HOME PLAYOFF GAME . This is more rare than a unicorn .

That was our last home playoff win.  Since that game, the Pats have won 5 Super Bowls.

[JustInFudge]

On 2/13/2022 at 10:27 PM, Barry McCockinner said:

It's almost like it's a team sport.

It's almost like the dumbest thing we do is judge QB's on wins and losses.

[Biggs]

21 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Brady had a top 10 defense for most, if not all of his Superbowl wins. Great QB, but he benefited greatly from the team around him. He made the most of those opportunities - which is part of why he's great. But it was never Brady vs. whatever QB like people always frame it. 

Two way street.  Those teams go nowhere without a historically elite HOF QB.  

[Warfish]

37 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

It's almost like the dumbest thing we do is judge QB's on wins and losses.

Does anyone judge a QB solely on wins and losses?  Or is this a straw man?

Everyone I see uses multiple criteria for judging the worth of QB's. 

Wins and Losses may be one criteria, but it's hardly the only one.  And even then, it's often more complex than just wins/losses, and more about if that QB can win games when the game is put on their shoulders in the big moment (i.e. the ol' Kirk Cousins criticism, he produces just fine, but can't win games when it matters and is on him).

[JustInFudge]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Does anyone judge a QB solely on wins and losses?  Or is this a straw man?

Everyone I see uses multiple criteria for judging the worth of QB's. 

Wins and Losses may be one criteria, but it's hardly the only one.  And even then, it's often more complex than just wins/losses, and more about if that QB can win games when the game is put on their shoulders in the big moment (i.e. the ol' Kirk Cousins criticism, he produces just fine, but can't win games when it matters and is on him).

Strawman-ish. lol It's the only position where it's kept as an official stat. No other position has a Win/Loss record next to their name on a stat sheet.  It's the only position where it's weighted criteria in the conversation.  Is it the only thing?  Of course not but it tends to dominate the conversation, especially postseason dialogue and I find it silly.

 

 

[jeremy2020]

2 hours ago, Biggs said:

Except the Giants don't sniff a SB without Eli playing great in two playoff runs.  The Rams don't sniff a  SB with Goff as the QB this past year.  It's a two way street.  You need a good enough team but you also need really good QB play to win 4 playoff games and get the SB win. 

Stafford is an example of a very good QB who will probably get into the HOF because he won a SB.  Dan Marino didn't play on good enough teams but Dan Marino was a generationally great QB.

The HOF has all kinds of players in it.  Truly elite great players.  Players who compiled great stats for a long time.  Players who were absolutely the best for a short time and several  good players who played on championship teams.

Players who play great in the playoffs against elite competition and are on winning SB teams set themselves apart.  SB MVP's set themselves apart.  MVP's set themselves apart.  Stat compilers set themselves apart.  Guys who passed the eye test as better than the other guys set themselves apart.  

The HOF has lots of different guys in for lots of different reasons.   I suspect Winston Hill got in because when you look at tape of SB3 he was the most dominating player on the field against a historically great D.   Joe Namath is in because of the SB.  

People are really confused by the word 'Fame' and think it means 'best ever'. 

[Warfish]

25 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Strawman-ish. lol It's the only position where it's kept as an official stat.

No other position has a Win/Loss record next to their name on a stat sheet.

It's the only position where it's weighted criteria in the conversation.

Just like Pitchers, who are equally not solely responsible for wins and losses, but play the single largest role on the team in wins/losses.

Ultimately, Quarterbacks are unquestionably the single most vital player in the NFL when it comes to teams winning or losing.  I don't see it being any more objectionable than tracking wins/losses for pitchers.  

Hell, I'd argue Quarterbacks have MORE a role in wins/losses than starting Pitchers do these days.

What's the core objection here?  That QB's shouldn't have Wins/Losses as a stat?  Even if it wasn't tracked, fans would still look at their careers and see how many playoff years they had, and how they did there, and factor it in to an analysis.  What is your objection here, that QB's are just like placekickers and long snappers, and no more important to wins than anyone else, so shouldn't be judged at all by wins?

Quote

  Is it the only thing?  Of course but it tends to dominate the conversation, especially postseason dialogue and I find it silly.

I don't think it "dominates" at all.  TD to INT, Passing Yards, Year's Played, and Postseason Play.

Lets be honest, by other Stats, Kirk Cousins is a future HOF'er. 

He only won't be because of Wins/Losses and a lack of leading his team to the Postseason or winning once there.

I think we'd all agree that's correct.  It's not enough to produce, you have to raise the level of your team, and if you can't, you have to go somewhere else and show it was your team (not you) that held back your greatness.

[Anthony Jet]

16 hours ago, freestater said:

Boy the way Glenn Miller played,

Songs that made the hit parade,

Guys like us, we had it made,

Those we're the days....

I’m offended

[bitonti]

9 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

..but it takes a decade to build a team that can even make the playoffs apparently

the Bucs went all in and won in 2020

the Rams went all in and won in 2021

even the Bengals spent like 200 mil in FA to rebuild their defense and get there

meanwhile the Jets are home growing their own tomatoes on a ten year plan 

great guys. Just great. 

 

[rtnelson]

17 hours ago, bitonti said:

the Bucs went all in and won in 2020

the Rams went all in and won in 2021

even the Bengals spent like 200 mil in FA to rebuild their defense and get there

meanwhile the Jets are home growing their own tomatoes on a ten year plan 

great guys. Just great. 

 

When we can look at the Jets and agree that they are "just a few pieces away from contention", that's the time to go all in.  You don't go "all in" without a good core of players or you end up with one or two playoff wins over a couple years and then back to 2 wins and square one.

And no, one or two playoff wins isn't worth it even if it has been a while.  The attempt is being made to build a competitive roster that will last beyond a few big FA signings coming and going and the expectation every year will be playoffs.  Will it work?  Who knows.  But I do think it's a good way to build a franchise, and not just a team that may get a few playoff wins before going back to a dumpster fire.