The Official 2019 NFL Thread/Season

[F30lolz]

Originally Posted by Mr.SugarSkulls

Maybe I'll just start a discriminatory Pats thread and essentially be all football except pats talk. Unless it's to express how much we're tired of them/hate them.

Every Super Bowl they’ve been in has been close except for the last one. They could very easily be anywhere from 1-8 to 9-0.

Blame the Falcons for being up twenty five (25) and still losing.

Also, you know where I’m going with this......but I’ll be nice and won’t mention the ‘other’ game.

Seattle has a chance for a rematch so if it happens they better RUN away with the trophy.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by Bongoxxx

Packers have had 13 wins and 3 other appearances and have gone back to back 3 times

Oh that’s right, most Pats fans don’t remember anything prior to 2001.

counting pre nfl championships is like saying you got a 4.0 in preschool

[Mr.SugarSkulls]

Originally Posted by F30lolz

Every Super Bowl they’ve been in has been close except for the last one. They could very easily be anywhere from 1-8 to 9-0.

Blame the Falcons for being up twenty five (25) and still losing.

Also, you know where I’m going with this......but I’ll be nice and won’t mention the ‘other’ game.

Seattle has a chance for a rematch so if it happens they better RUN away with the trophy.

I'll pass.

[Bongoxxx]

Originally Posted by Torgus

2001? I am talking real modern NFL Superbowls. Not pre 1970 merger. If you need to use laurels from the 1920s than so be it. Those were not real superbowls. There is a reason everyone and wikipedia start at 1970 when the merger happened. I have spent time in green bay and respect the history more than most but please do not try and make it into something it is not. Your two wins were well deserved and you have had some great teams. Most teams would kill for a history of greatness like Greenbay.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...Bowl_champions

Please edit wikipedia if it is wrong.

Dallas (1992–1993; 1995) and New England (2001; 2003–2004) are the only teams to win three out of four consecutive Super Bowls.

2 wins? You clearly can’t read Wikipedia, the Packers have 4 Super Bowl wins and 13 championships, sure I’ll give back the first 3 where a championship game wasn’t played, so 10 championships....but apparently “everyone starts at 1970”

If that was truly the case it wouldn’t be called the Lombardi Trophy...

[Bongoxxx]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

counting pre nfl championships is like saying you got a 4.0 in preschool

Not counting them is a kick in the teeth to the history of the game, but people will look at the stats and do what they will to appease themselves.

In the end Packers have 13 championships, 4 of which are Super Bowls and the trophy played for is named after the coach that won 5 for the Packers.

I guess as an owner of the Packers I’m biased

[TrevorM3]

Originally Posted by Mardio

As a 49er fan I'm not convinced yet. We need to play a really good team to see where we are at. Yes the defense looks great and the running game is above average imo, but Jimmy G makes me nervous. Every time he throws over the middle it looks like an interception is about to happen, we've been lucky a few times that cornerbacks are just dropping easy picks. If the 49ers are losing in the 4th quarter then Jimmy will be forced to throw and right now I have zero confidence in that scenario. Hopefully he proves me wrong...

rams up next for you guys, gurley hurt.. could be another W...

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Bongoxxx

Not counting them is a kick in the teeth to the history of the game, but people will look at the stats and do what they will to appease themselves.

In the end Packers have 13 championships, 4 of which are Super Bowls and the trophy played for is named after the coach that won 5 for the Packers.

I guess as an owner of the Packers I’m biased

I have the utmost respect for the packers and their history and Iove being in packer territory but the records have a reason they are separated. I count the wins man but it is massively different than today's game. It is just different.

Everyone should know about greenbay's history.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by Bongoxxx

Not counting them is a kick in the teeth to the history of the game, but people will look at the stats and do what they will to appease themselves.

In the end Packers have 13 championships, 4 of which are Super Bowls and the trophy played for is named after the coach that won 5 for the Packers.

I guess as an owner of the Packers I’m biased

how many teams were there back then? we both know it is very little compared to the superbowl era and was a completely different format and game. 1 game between the 2 teams with the best record from the 2 divisions was their "playoffs". Which is why pre merger championships are cool, but not used to discuss total NFL championships.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

how many teams were there back then? we both know it is very little compared to the superbowl era and was a completely different format and game. 1 game between the 2 teams with the best record from the 2 divisions was their "playoffs". Which is why pre merger championships are cool, but not used to discuss total NFL championships.

That is the thing the game is so different. Hell the game is so different now from the 70s when the merger happened, Tom Brady would not be playing in the 70s or 80s NFL at his age. The QBs are so protected now the game is so different with all the rule changes etc.

[lakefront]

Originally Posted by Torgus

That is the thing the game is so different. Hell the game is so different now from the 70s when the merger happened, Tom Brady would not be playing in the 70s or 80s NFL at his age. The QBs are so protected now the game is so different with all the rule changes etc.

Exactly....the game is very different now. As you said, its even different from the 70's. It changes constantly. Does that make it better? Is it better now than in the early 90's before they started protecting QBs? I realize this is always going to be an ongoing argument but as a fan of the NFL from the 60's I know that it was a great game with great teams and I hate to just see that part of the league's history dismissed because the championship game wasn't called a Super Bowl.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by lakefront

Exactly....the game is very different now. As you said, its even different from the 70's. It changes constantly. Does that make it better? Is it better now than in the early 90's before they started protecting QBs? I realize this is always going to be an ongoing argument but as a fan of the NFL from the 60's I know that it was a great game with great teams and I hate to just see that part of the league's history dismissed because the championship game wasn't called a Super Bowl.

its not that it wasnt called a super bowl, it is that it is akin to the NFC or AFC championship game.

You can claim the past NFL and AFL championships, but it doesnt compare to a superbowl where you are taking the best of both, after beating the best from each, and being the winner of that.

[lakefront]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

its not that it wasnt called a super bowl, it is that it is akin to the NFC or AFC championship game.

You can claim the past NFL and AFL championships, but it doesnt compare to a superbowl where you are taking the best of both, after beating the best from each, and being the winner of that.

How many teams were in the AFL in 1962? And once the AFL started, how long until its talent level was close to the NFL? The first 2 SBs had teams from the AFL that were very good, but the league as a whole was not competitive. So NFL Championships were nothing at all like a conference champion. They were the only real measure of the best pro football teams.

[TrevorM3]

why so much talk about brady? he's great, enjoy watching him. because when he's gone, NE will be a bottom feeder.


anyway, Hawks about to slaughter CLE this week. or so i hope..

[Dagamus_NM]

Originally Posted by TrevorM3

why so much talk about brady? he's great, enjoy watching him. because when he's gone, NE will be a bottom feeder.


anyway, Hawks about to slaughter CLE this week. or so i hope..

I would be a little more cautioned about the optimism on this one. I imagine it will be close with either team winning by a small margin, likely a low scoring affair.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by lakefront

How many teams were in the AFL in 1962? And once the AFL started, how long until its talent level was close to the NFL? The first 2 SBs had teams from the AFL that were very good, but the league as a whole was not competitive. So NFL Championships were nothing at all like a conference champion. They were the only real measure of the best pro football teams.

Has nothing to do with it. How many times over the past 50years has one conference had a weak field? Regardless, if you arent able to play and beat the best, how can you say its a true champion?

Playing 12 games and 1 championship game is completely different than playing a full schedule, a full playoffs, and winning the big game.

Good for you that you had several championships prior to the NFL as it is today, but we dont count AFL championships, why would we count pre merger "nfl" championships with the actual NFL Championships? You dont count championships from pre 1903 world series towards the overal total MLB Championships

[lakefront]

We don't count AFL championships because they aren't NFL championships...really? We don't count USFL champs either. And nobody can seriously think that an AFL champion would have been able to give the NFL champs a competitive game in the early days of the league. And this isn't about the Packers. The Bears, Colts, Giants, Rams, etc all had great teams in 50s and 60s. I'm thinking that the toll on the players bodies was greater in 12 games at that time than the 16 games now with all the substitutions and the lack of hitting in todays game.
But, obviously, we will have to agree to disagree.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by lakefront

We don't count AFL championships because they aren't NFL championships...really? We don't count USFL champs either. And nobody can seriously think that an AFL champion would have been able to give the NFL champs a competitive game in the early days of the league. And this isn't about the Packers. The Bears, Colts, Giants, Rams, etc all had great teams in 50s and 60s. I'm thinking that the toll on the players bodies was greater in 12 games at that time than the 16 games now with all the substitutions and the lack of hitting in todays game.
But, obviously, we will have to agree to disagree.

AFL and the pre merger NFL are the same thing... Neither are the actual NFL of today

NFL turned into the NFC and AFL into the AFC.

For someone that seems to be putting a lot of stock into the early football years, i didnt think that would have to be explained...

and before you go "AFL didnt have the talent level of the NFL" do you remember who won the 3rd and 4th superbowl? I'll give you a hint, they were from the AFL

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by TrevorM3

why so much talk about brady? he's great, enjoy watching him. because when he's gone, NE will be a bottom feeder.

That does not make a lot of sense no offense.

The Patriots have the #1 defense. An average QB with the #1 defense can go deep into the playoffs and even win a SB. Eli manning won two SBs, not because he is a great QB.

Patriots would still have Belichick Mayo Josh McDaniels and Dante Scarnecchia. 4 great coaches. They take average players and make them look great. They can and will do the same when Brady is gone.

By the way very likely Brady leaves the patriots after this season and goes to play for another team so you will very likely get to see how it all plays out.

If Brady or Belichick win another SB without each other it will cement them as the GOAT in their positions. I think one or both of them will do it.


Edit: Brady broke another record last night. Oldest QB to run in two touchdowns in a game. He is going to hold on to that one for a long time.

[TrevorM3]

Originally Posted by Torgus

That does not make a lot of sense no offense.

The Patriots have the #1 defense. An average QB with the #1 defense can go deep into the playoffs and even win a SB. Eli manning won two SBs, not because he is a great QB.

Patriots would still have Belichick Mayo Josh McDaniels and Dante Scarnecchia. 4 great coaches. They take average players and make them look great. They can and will do the same when Brady is gone.

By the way very likely Brady leaves the patriots after this season and goes to play for another team so you will very likely get to see how it all plays out.

If Brady or Belichick win another SB without each other it will cement them as the GOAT in their positions. I think one or both of them will do it.


Edit: Brady broke another record last night. Oldest QB to run in two touchdowns in a game. He is going to hold on to that one for a long time.

why the hell would brady ever go play for another organization? not happening

[TXSTYLE]

I'm actually interested in today's game between Browns and Seattle....

[1MOREMOD]

Same, wanted to go

[TrevorM3]

anyone know where to stream the game? reddit not longer works