NFL Playoffs

[pacopete4]

Well, the NFL got what it wanted, an offensive show. This caters so much to the casual fan. It brings in people who just like to see action. I am not really one of them. Some people were raving that there were no punts last night. Great. I guess I'll tune into arena football too.

[nodakfan17]

The Patriots give up 41 and Brady loses a Super Bowl. Shocker. That’s the type of crap Rodgers has to deal with on a week in, week out basis.

 

4th time in 37 playoff games that the Pat's gave up 30 points.

Packers have given up 30 5 times in 16 playoff games under Rodgers.

 

Rodgers has been eliminated 3 times when the defense gives up 40+ despite averaging 33 points (Pat’s total yesterday) in those games. After last year’s 28-3 comeback, I finally acknowledged Brady’s greatness, but I still don’t believe he’s light years ahead of Rodgers.

[pacopete4]

After last year’s 28-3 comeback, I finally acknowledged Brady’s greatness, but I still don’t believe he’s light years ahead of Rodgers.

I think sometimes what we have a hard time with is that multiple players can be great at the same time. Those two, while they have different styles of play, are interchangeable. I think a guy like Brees would be too. If you stuck any of those three on New England over the last decade, you would have pretty close to the same results.

[KeithStone53151]

After last year’s 28-3 comeback, I finally acknowledged Brady’s greatness, but I still don’t believe he’s light years ahead of Rodgers.

I think sometimes what we have a hard time with is that multiple players can be great at the same time. Those two, while they have different styles of play, are interchangeable. I think a guy like Brees would be too. If you stuck any of those three on New England over the last decade, you would have pretty close to the same results.

 

I actually strongly contend that both Brees and Rodgers are more talented than Brady and New England would have been more successful with those 2 guys. It's not even questionable with Rodgers. He has the best arm in football and can make every throw, and makes good judgement decisions. Brady makes a living throwing primarily 5 yard passes to quick receivers that are good for YAC. He's definitely a great QB, he executes the game plan extremely well. But a large part of the reason he's had so much playoff success relates to coach/scheme/defense. So saying he's the GOAT over his playoff success is like saying Trent Dilfer was better than Dan Marino.

 

One thing I noticed in this particular superbowl was the lack of offensive holding calls. I saw considerable holding by both teams...but especially on New England. Some were blatant that I couldn't believe didn't get called. You wonder why both QB's could stand back there with basically unlimited time most plays?

[nodakfan17]

After last year’s 28-3 comeback, I finally acknowledged Brady’s greatness, but I still don’t believe he’s light years ahead of Rodgers.

I think sometimes what we have a hard time with is that multiple players can be great at the same time. Those two, while they have different styles of play, are interchangeable. I think a guy like Brees would be too. If you stuck any of those three on New England over the last decade, you would have pretty close to the same results.

Well said. I think as Packer fans, we’re probably guilty of that same sin. Our team is pretty good and we have a neat history, but other teams are good too. However, I think I can objectively claim that Brady has been the beneficiary of unbelievablely fortunate circumstances (good health, great coaching, stable ownership, quality defenses, weak division, etc.). When you win Super Bowls, you deserve acclaim, but to suggest Rodgers is a far lesser QB because of his 7 playoff losses where his team gave up 36.6 ppg (2 of which went to OT and he didn’t get the ball) is silly.

[hurricanecrush]

I think they got one right and one wrong- Clement did appear to be out of bounds, and Ertz appeared to have had time to become a runner.

 

Both highlighted two major problems the NFL has right now, though. What, exactly, is 'indisputable' evidence? They went away from that standard this year and no one understood why. And obviously the catch thing has been beaten to death.

 

I expected both calls to go the opposite way that they did, though.

 

I don't know. That replay from the back of the end zone on the Clement TD showed the ball was moving but it looked like Clement still had both hands on the ball the entire time. That's not a loss of possession where he has to regain it.

I agree, the ball did move with Clement but I thought it moved because he secured/tucked it, he didn't lose control.

[pacopete4]

Well said. I think as Packer fans, we’re probably guilty of that same sin. Our team is pretty good and we have a neat history, but other teams are good too.

 

I just had this discussion with a few Vikings fans. Even though they don't have that elusive Super Bowl win as a franchise, their history is as rich as just about anyone else. They have one of the better winning percentages of all time, been to four SB's, ton's of division championship teams and many great and even quite a few HOF players.

 

Hard to bag on that franchise too much.

[superfly]

Well said. I think as Packer fans, we’re probably guilty of that same sin. Our team is pretty good and we have a neat history, but other teams are good too.

 

I just had this discussion with a few Vikings fans. Even though they don't have that elusive Super Bowl win as a franchise, their history is as rich as just about anyone else. They have one of the better winning percentages of all time, been to four SB's, ton's of division championship teams and many great and even quite a few HOF players.

 

Hard to bag on that franchise too much.

 

But it's so much fun.....

 

Living over in MN now i've become much more neutral to the Vikings and their fans. Most of them know they will choke a game away when it counts and embrace it. The Bears on the other hand I will NEVER stop hating.

[homer]

I think the thing with debatable catches is that every game has super slo mo 4K, 19 camera angles, etc. So when you go frame by frame any little imperfection gets amplified. I thought both of those plays were catches and wouldn't have even been debatable 20 years ago.

[nodakfan17]

There’s definitely something to technology fueling the debate about catches, but technology would likely have proven that Jerry Rice fumbled, so I’m torn.

[homer]

There’s definitely something to technology fueling the debate about catches, but technology would likely have proven that Jerry Rice fumbled, so I’m torn.

 

Didn't need 4K or 20 cameras to tell me that.

[jerichoholicninja]

After last year’s 28-3 comeback, I finally acknowledged Brady’s greatness, but I still don’t believe he’s light years ahead of Rodgers.

I think sometimes what we have a hard time with is that multiple players can be great at the same time. Those two, while they have different styles of play, are interchangeable. I think a guy like Brees would be too. If you stuck any of those three on New England over the last decade, you would have pretty close to the same results.

 

I actually strongly contend that both Brees and Rodgers are more talented than Brady and New England would have been more successful with those 2 guys. It's not even questionable with Rodgers. He has the best arm in football and can make every throw, and makes good judgement decisions. Brady makes a living throwing primarily 5 yard passes to quick receivers that are good for YAC. He's definitely a great QB, he executes the game plan extremely well. But a large part of the reason he's had so much playoff success relates to coach/scheme/defense. So saying he's the GOAT over his playoff success is like saying Trent Dilfer was better than Dan Marino.

 

One thing I noticed in this particular superbowl was the lack of offensive holding calls. I saw considerable holding by both teams...but especially on New England. Some were blatant that I couldn't believe didn't get called. You wonder why both QB's could stand back there with basically unlimited time most plays?

 

Seemed like a generally penalty free game but I was really only paying half attention most of the game. However, if you ask my friends the Patriots held, interfered, and shanked an Eagle on every play but it was never called. They were complaining that Gronk didn't get called for OPI on the hail mary which I don't know how he could when he had 5 Eagles holding him. Not sure how the refs missed Hogan getting tackled halfway down the field on that play which should have been illegal contact.

[FVBrewerFan]

There’s definitely something to technology fueling the debate about catches, but technology would likely have proven that Jerry Rice fumbled, so I’m torn.

 

That would not be reviewed even today, since it wasn't called a fumble on the field right? I don't know, it's confusing keeping up with the instant replay rules. There's no going back now, but too bad all sports can't eliminate all instant replay. It's so unfair.

[trwi7]

There’s definitely something to technology fueling the debate about catches, but technology would likely have proven that Jerry Rice fumbled, so I’m torn.

 

That would not be reviewed even today, since it wasn't called a fumble on the field right? I don't know, it's confusing keeping up with the instant replay rules. There's no going back now, but too bad all sports can't eliminate all instant replay. It's so unfair.

 

Yes it would have. First, if replay was available you're much more likely to have a referee let the play go all the way through and rule it a turnover knowing that all turnovers are reviewed and you can change it on replay. Second, even if it wasn't called a fumble on the field it can still be reviewed and given to the Packers as long as it was determined to be a fumble and a clear, immediate recovery by the Packers, which it was.

[jerichoholicninja]

There’s definitely something to technology fueling the debate about catches, but technology would likely have proven that Jerry Rice fumbled, so I’m torn.

 

That would not be reviewed even today, since it wasn't called a fumble on the field right? I don't know, it's confusing keeping up with the instant replay rules. There's no going back now, but too bad all sports can't eliminate all instant replay. It's so unfair.

 

Yes it would have. First, if replay was available you're much more likely to have a referee let the play go all the way through and rule it a turnover knowing that all turnovers are reviewed and you can change it on replay. Second, even if it wasn't called a fumble on the field it can still be reviewed and given to the Packers as long as it was determined to be a fumble and a clear, immediate recovery by the Packers, which it was.

 

One of the ref guys the networks have on during games said as much. The refs are told if you're not 100% sure of the call, make the call that can be or will be reviewed.