Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

2019 Game Day Thread - SUPERBOWL - Chiefs Win!


zCommander

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NickyJ said:

Yes, but to a lesser extent. The defense there was garbage for most of the decade, but the team did generally give him a good offense. Not getting to the Super Bowl in 10 years is a disappointment for a team with a QB still setting career records.

 

I think some of that is the fact that cats gave up on Brees too. His still the little engine that could **** your defense up. A sucsess story of sorts as people underestimated him. Hes not seen as the heir apparent like Rodgers or I guess Rothlesburger. Maybe thats just me tho 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hail2skins said:

Does Sean Payton get the same amount of criticism for "wasting" Brees as McCarthy and Tomlin do? I've always found that curious....

 

If Brees or Rodgers were on the Pats, in place of Brady, does anyone think they’d have just one Super Bowl win?  The difference is that the Pats maintained extremely competent well rounded teams around their QBs along with, and also because of, superior coaching.

 

We can argue which QBs are better, but there’s no debate which teams were better.  Champions are more than just good passing attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning Super Bowls is not easy. You can have the best QB in the world, but if you aren't sharp at other positions you won't win championships. "Wasting" quarterbacks is just another way of saying the team lacked in other areas. And honestly even great QBs have bad games in the playoffs. That fumble by Brees in the wild card round was huge, one of the reasons they lost that game. 

 

You need more than just a good QB to win multiple championships. You need great drafting and free agent acquisitions, tremendous coaching, game execution, and a little bit of luck. Brees and Rodgers winning one Super Bowl is a big accomplishment. It's so difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Wasting" quarterbacks is a bit of a different conversation in the AFC and NFC to me because of the Brady speed bump, but I generally think all of the wasting is on the QBs shoulders for not getting it done when they should. 

 

I think the Colts really did "waste" Manning and Luck. I think that a majority of those teams were plenty good enough to beat the Patriots and plenty good enough to win win super bowls against whomever the NFC was bringing. Manning only making one super bowl with the colts is a travesty, and I don't think it's because the colts were never the best team in the AFC. I think they were frequently the best team in the AFC and Manning frequently played poorly in the playoffs. So I personally feel like Manning "wasted" his quality teams, but I don't really feel like the Colts wasted Manning. I think the Colts did a good job of giving Manning chances to make meaningful runs. 

 

Rogers and Brees? I'm sorry, there's no meaningful excuse for the two of them having 2 super bowl appearances between them. They went back to back in the 09 and 10 seasons, and neither has been back since (despite it being their absolute prime years). The NFC representatives in that time? NYG, SF, SEA, SEA, CAR, ATL, PHI, LAR. I'm sorry, the only one up there that I realistically consider a power house to have "impeded" Rogers or Brees from going to the super bowl is Seattle. All the rest are one off appearances by teams that had no business beating the elite, veteran, "been there" guys. 2 of the teams listed were wild card teams (NYG) and Philly was rocking their back up QB. At some point we have to call Rogers and Brees out for not being what we think they are. Or at least criticize them half as much as we did Peyton (whom I criticized a LOOOOOT). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, GhostofSparta said:

Hmmmm....interesting that another team is using the "Belicheck kill the clock with penalties" method.

 

Anyone think this gets changed before the 2020 season?

 

Funny, Aikman said the same thing. I would change it to letting them get a penalty for delay of game, and if it happens again... 5 yards and the opposing team takes over at the spot. That should end it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I think the Colts really did "waste" Manning and Luck. I think that a majority of those teams were plenty good enough to beat the Patriots and plenty good enough to win win super bowls against whomever the NFC was bringing. Manning only making one super bowl with the colts is a travesty, and I don't think it's because the colts were never the best team in the AFC. I think they were frequently the best team in the AFC and Manning frequently played poorly in the playoffs.

 

Bill Belichick found ways to disrupt the Colts offense by taking advantage of the refs and looking at everything that would or would not be called. Among many other things that the fans can't really see. Not even mentioning videotaping their

opponents.

 

That is the greatness of the Patriots. Bill Belichick has guys looking at everything that they can possibly take advantage of and then they find ways to win.

 

I mean, deflate gate, what a joke right? But the Patriots had the fewest fumbles in the league every year for most of 2 decades. I wonder how important a slightly deflated football was in that.

 

Those are just the few that we know about.

 

Add all of those little advantages up and what do you get?

 

The Patriots winning 6 of 20 SBs and division winners for almost 2 entire decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, NickyJ said:

Rodgers has kept up with Favre just fine. In 20 years, Brett Favre went to playoffs 12 times. In half that time, Aaron Rodgers has gone to playoffs 8 times. Brett Favre was taking his teams to the playoffs before I was born, so I can't say what the rest of his team was like. But like what was mentioned earlier, it's been a decade until Aaron Jones got on the team that Rodgers has had a good RB. Before Jones, the entire offense was all on Rodgers' back, and when he was out it was painfully clear just how much. Since 2010, his best receiver duo was Jordy Nelson and Davante Adams. Now it's Davante Adams and the shell Jimmy Graham.

 

The defense has been so shoddy for so long that I won't even bother to go through that, except that they kept their DC Dom Capers for WAY too long.

 

It's rare for teams to get a HOF quarterback. It's even rarer for teams to get 2 HOF quarterbacks in a row. The way the Colts wasted Manning and Luck, and the Packers wasted Favre and Rodgers makes me angry. Teams go for DECADES without a good QB while other teams are content to coast along and achieve the bare minimum with superstars. It's why I respect the Chiefs right now. They have a superstar in Mahomes and they haven't pinched pennies around him. A new contract for him might change that, but for now they're making the most of him.

Ehh Rodgers kind of brought that on himself, he never had any interest in running. Even this year he was pissy about a coach who wanted to run a lot. He has always had a lot of WRs around him other than the last 2 seasons, but he still had Adams, who is a top 10 WR

 

Favre played with Sharpe for 3 years at the very beginning, and then Drive and Freeman are the next best guys, and he essentially made them. **** he made careers out of Bill Schroeder, Bubba Franks or look at Sidney Rice's year with Favre. He did have Green at RB who was very good.

 

I agree, kind of a crime that since 92 the Packers only have 2 SBs, that duo really isn't a step down from the Montana/Young duo in terms of talent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Skins199021 said:

Ehh Rodgers kind of brought that on himself, he never had any interest in running. Even this year he was pissy about a coach who wanted to run a lot. He has always had a lot of WRs around him other than the last 2 seasons, but he still had Adams, who is a top 10 WR

 

Favre played with Sharpe for 3 years at the very beginning, and then Drive and Freeman are the next best guys, and he essentially made them. **** he made careers out of Bill Schroeder, Bubba Franks or look at Sidney Rice's year with Favre. He did have Green at RB who was very good.

 

I agree, kind of a crime that since 92 the Packers only have 2 SBs, that duo really isn't a step down from the Montana/Young duo in terms of talent

Agree. And Favre played in an era where good or even great quarterbacks still routinely lost and were expected to lose against good defenses with good running games. One year after winning his super bowl, Favre lost to Elway's broncos largely because in that era a quarterback only threw the ball 25-30 times a game at most and their ability to out duel someone like Terrell Davis was limited.

 

The 2000s are full of Favre playing on teams with no real receivers (miss me with Donald Driver and Greg Jennings) and a very good Ahman Green and mostly losing against Andy Reid's Eagles. The only two major flops in that stretch that I remember are losing to Michael Vick at home and losing to the Giants at home in the NFC Championship. The rest I think they legit lost to the better team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2020 at 3:25 PM, Vilandil Tasardur said:

"Wasting" quarterbacks is a bit of a different conversation in the AFC and NFC to me because of the Brady speed bump, but I generally think all of the wasting is on the QBs shoulders for not getting it done when they should. 

 

I think the Colts really did "waste" Manning and Luck. I think that a majority of those teams were plenty good enough to beat the Patriots and plenty good enough to win win super bowls against whomever the NFC was bringing. Manning only making one super bowl with the colts is a travesty, and I don't think it's because the colts were never the best team in the AFC. I think they were frequently the best team in the AFC and Manning frequently played poorly in the playoffs. So I personally feel like Manning "wasted" his quality teams, but I don't really feel like the Colts wasted Manning. I think the Colts did a good job of giving Manning chances to make meaningful runs. 

 

Rogers and Brees? I'm sorry, there's no meaningful excuse for the two of them having 2 super bowl appearances between them. They went back to back in the 09 and 10 seasons, and neither has been back since (despite it being their absolute prime years). The NFC representatives in that time? NYG, SF, SEA, SEA, CAR, ATL, PHI, LAR. I'm sorry, the only one up there that I realistically consider a power house to have "impeded" Rogers or Brees from going to the super bowl is Seattle. All the rest are one off appearances by teams that had no business beating the elite, veteran, "been there" guys. 2 of the teams listed were wild card teams (NYG) and Philly was rocking their back up QB. At some point we have to call Rogers and Brees out for not being what we think they are. Or at least criticize them half as much as we did Peyton (whom I criticized a LOOOOOT). 

 

 

Generally the main reason Brees hasn't gotten as far was because the Saints defense tends to fall apart in the playoffs.  He's had some key mistakes himself though the past two playoff losses.  Even in seasons where the team hasn't been as good though he's done really well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, visionary said:

Generally the main reason Brees hasn't gotten as far was because the Saints defense tends to fall apart in the playoffs.  He's had some key mistakes himself though the past two playoff losses.  Even in seasons where the team hasn't been as good though he's done really well.

I realize that's the narrative, but is it really true? 

 

Since winning the super bowl in the 2009 season, his seasons and playoff losses look like this:

2010 season: 36-41 loss to Seattle where he put up 2 TDs, 1 turnover

2011 season: 32-36 loss to San Fran where he put up 4 TDs, 2 turnovers

2012 season: No playoffs

2013 season: 15-23 loss to Seattle where he put up 1 TD, 1 turnover

2014 season: no playoffs

2015 season: no playoffs

2016 season: no playoffs

2017 season: 24-29 loss to Minnesota where he put up 3 TDs, 3 turnovers

2018 season: 23-26 loss to LA Rams where he put up 2 TDs, 1 turnover

2019 season: 20-26 loss to Minnesota where he put up 1 TD, 2 turnovers

 

Only the first two years look to me like the defense fell apart. Every year since it looks like a great quarterback (who is known for huge numbers of yards, TDs, and very few turnovers) suddenly couldn't muster more than 24 points on offense and was turning the ball over. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ThePackisback said:

You guys think we can beat SF?

I'm not betting on it. I'd love to watch Rodgers vs. Mahomes, but I'm expecting your offense to get shutdown by the 49ers. I see the Packers and Vikings as being on the same level, an explosive team that isn't explosive without a strong running game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ThePackisback said:

You guys think we can beat SF?

 

At Lambaugh? Yeah. San Fran? No. I got the Chiefs vs. 49ers in SB. Chiefs win. I've had a lot wrong in the playoffs so far, so who knows. I know the NFL would like a Packer - Chiefs first SB match up repeat, so look for the refs to be on your side. If it is the Chiefs will get it this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, the 49ers are just a better team in most areas.  The way I see it, the Packers best (and likely only shot) to win this game is to go all out aggressive out of the gate and try to score early, maybe get up 10 or 14-0.   You know the 49ers offense leans on the running game.  Jimmy G can make some throws, but they don't want him to to be forced into being the catalyst of the offense.  I think it is a similar situation to the Vikings.  They aren't worried that Kirk can't make big throws, but they would rather him not have to.   We haven't really seen a game yet where Jimmy G had to be the guy to make "the magic happen"  

 

I see this game pretty much the same way I would have seen SF vs. Seattle:  The Superior team vs The Superior QB.   Sometimes having the better QB is enough to will the lesser team to a victory.  Would I bet on that happening Sunday?  No.............but it could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2020 at 11:55 PM, Rdskns2000 said:

No.

San Fran will pound Aaron to the ground over and over again.

 

San Fran 31

Packers 10

 

Chiefs will have a tougher game but will come out on top.

 

Chiefs 34

Titans 24

One more thing, if there is to be an upset; it will be the Titans.  Andy Reid is 1-5 in Championship games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how so few are willing to give the Titans any props, even after all they have accomplished.

 

These guys are not about stars, they have no Mahomes or Rodgers, the media coverage is an afterthought but to me these guys exemplify team in a way that others don't.

 

Vrabel has forged the kind of spirit and intensity I am hoping to see Rivera & Co. bring here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weather will be cold in Kansas City.

 

The game will start at 20 degrees and probably be in the low to mid teens by the time the game is ending. Though it will be sunny.

 

No such problem in San Francisco. There it will be cloudy and in the mid 50s at game time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...