I would have preferred a different outcome, but congrats to Philly fans (and to Pittsburgh fans
).The Pats defense from the first 5 games showed up last night, unwelcome but there nonetheless. :second:
NFL 2017
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
).The Pats defense from the first 5 games showed up last night, unwelcome but there nonetheless. :second:
The NFL does not.
Only people in Cleveland do.
According to the NFL, the Browns officially have 4 championships. Their 4 championships from the AAFC are not recognized by the NFL.
congrats to Philly fans (and to Pittsburgh fans
Watching the Patriots lose is a small consolation prize.
However, watching the Patriots lose when two touchdowns probably should have been incomplete passes, made it that much more enjoyable.
Especially the final TD, which was almost identical to the Steeler's Jesse James' TD that was overturned against the Patriots.
The Berean
Well-known member
Well, I think that is silly. Paul Brown created one of the greatest dynasties in pro football history. Those 1940's Browns teams were probably better than the NFL championship teams (1946-49). But at least the NFL does recognize the 1945 Cleveland Rams championship, though.
View attachment 26159
If you count the AAFC years, the Browns played in 10 straight championship games, and 11 of 12.
Otto Graham, as their QB, played in the 10 straight championship games, winning 7 of 10.
So, counting the 1945 Rams, the city of Cleveland had their football team play in 11 straight championship games, winning 8 of them from 1945-1957.
Then they played in 4 championship games in 6 years from 1964-1969, winning the championship in 1964. (the '68 & '69 were NFL Championships, with the winner going to the Super Bowl, but before the 1970 merger)
Then things changed.
Since the Browns returned to Cleveland in 1999, they have made the playoffs, just once, and lost their first game (to the Steelers)
The Berean
Well-known member
I've read a lot about the AAFC and Paul Brown. The NFL hated the AAFC and would disparage the AAFC all the time. The Browns dominated the AAFC. When the AAFC merged with the NFL in 1950 the NFL had the Browns play the defending NFL champion Eagles to try to embarrass the Browns. But the Browns beat the Eagles on Opening Day and went on to win the NFL title that year, technically, as an expansion team. Hahaha. On a side note the 1948 Browns were undefeated at 15-0.
The Berean
Well-known member
It must suck for Browns fans to know that the original Browns, now the Baltimore Ravens, have won two Super Bowls since they left Cleveland.
In the last 30 days, Nick Foles has more postseason wins than the Cowboys, Browns, Bengals, Bills, Lions, and Dolphins have COMBINED in the 21st century.
Brady has eight SB appearances in 16 seasons (injured in 09), which is 50% of his seasons, he leads the team to the SB, which is much better than even Montana. Brady also just has more wins than any other passer in history, and winning is the headlining point of playing any game, it's about winning, and wins are the most important statistic in that regard. And no basketball position equates to football's QB, that would be a false parallel, a fake analogy, which is a fallacy. And this SB I think we now know that Brady's coach has cost this team wins independent of Brady, who earned a 115 passer rating in the game against Philly, while Belichick sat Malcom Butler, who was a better tackler than the players who got more time in the SB because of Belichick's decision to sit Butler. And there were missed tackles on key downs in that game. We all saw that, and that was due to Belichick. We have seen him lose games, where Brady did his job and did it well. Brady has to win in spite of his coach sometimes. That doesn't find its way into any stat. I don't think Montana had that problem.
Which is more Super Bowl appearances than 28 of the 32 NFL franchises have in their history.
And yet he has only one more win than Montana and three more losses. And he's lucky not to have as many losses as wins. It took a puzzling bad call by Seattle and a historic offensive collapse by Atlanta to keep that away.
And he still has more SB losses than anyone except Kelly.
True. He passed a retired Peyton eleven games into 2016, after serving a four game suspension.
For gauging the efficacy of teams. But not when you evaluate positions, which is why Barry Sanders is largely considered in the top three backs of all time, despite playing for bad teams and not winning any championships.
Nonsense. The parallel is in noting the foolishness of conflating a position evaluation with team performance. In basketball a man can have more influence than any one position on a football team, including the quarterback.
He lost to a team led by a back up. Joe wouldn't. Didn't. He lost twice to the lesser Manning while bringing the number one offense into the game. Brady is great, but he's not Montana. He's not even the greatest of his generation, though given the level of competition that's not embarrassing.
What we know is that when Brady went down for a year the team, led by a backup that never did anything again, won eleven games.
We've seen his teams win games despite him.
2001 against Oakland. No tds and one int. A 70 qb rating. They win anyway.
In fact, that three game stretch he threw as many ints as tds, 1. So he can thank Bill and his kicker for the beginning of the legend.
2003? He threw one td against Tennessee in another weak sister, back up level performance and a 73 rating. They win anyway.
Then they beat Indy and he wasn't much better. 1/1 td to int in that game and another back-up level performance. He didn't earn his keep until he got to the SB. Then he started looking like he would more often than not. Didn't stop him from looking bad against Denver though in 2005, losing in the backup range again, with 1 td to 2 int.
2006 SB run he stank up the middle game against SD. Horrible 57 rating, more ints than tds. They won anyway.
2007, they meet SD again in the middle of the SB run. He stinks it up again. 66 rating. They win anyway.
2011 against Bal again. He's awful. 57 rating, 0 tds and 2 ints. They win it for him anyway.
2016, first game of the SB run, he's lousy. a 68 rating and as many tds as ints against Houston. They win anyway.
No, he mostly doesn't. Rather, a number of times his coach, the one who won 11 games without him, has gotten him in a position to do better.
The only game that resembled that would be the middle round against Chicago, in 84. He had a weak performance and his team got him past it. Else, when he wasn't on top they didn't win.
1981: 104, 81, 100. His weakest game was meh, but not something his team had to get over.
I noted 84. 82, 60, 127
The next two SB runs? He was great.
1988: 100, 136, 115.
1989: 142, 125, 147
Last edited:
Don't forget the next game (The 2001 AFC Championship). Brady was knocked out of the game in the 2nd quarter. Bledsoe finished the game at QB, the Patriots won, and went to the Super Bowl. Brady had 0 TD passes in that game, before being knocked out.
In the 3 postseason games the Patriots won in their 2001 Super Bowl winning season, Brady threw for 1 TD, and 1 INT. He had a 77.3 QB rating for that postseason.
However, Brady did make good use of the "tuck rule" in that 2001 postseason.
That 84' Chicago defense was one year away from being one of the greatest defenses ever.
The closest defense Brady ever faced that resembled that Bear's defense was the Raven's defense, and Brady never did much against those Raven's defenses.
Brady only lost 3 games at Foxboro in the playoffs. 2 of those were to Baltimore, and as you pointed out, he should have lost to Baltimore in 2011 at Foxboro also.
Only a dropped TD, and missed chip-shot field goal by the Ravens in the final seconds of the game saved Brady and the Patriots.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Yes, and he had three times more playoff wins in that thirty days than the Steelers had in their first thirty years of their existence!
I'm ok with that. I wasn't alive back then. I don't care what the Steelers did before I was alive.
Since I started watching football in 1972, no team has won more regular season games, won more divisions, won more postseason games, and won more championships than the Pittsburgh Steelers.
You on the other hand, can't say the same thing.
Your Cowboys have won TWO playoff games in the last 21 years !!!!
Since the 1970 merger:
Most regular and postseason wins:
480 - Steelers
459 - Cowboys
449 - Broncos
444 - Dolphins
444 - Patriots
Most regular and postseason wins:
480 - Steelers
459 - Cowboys
449 - Broncos
444 - Dolphins
444 - Patriots
All the chatter about Brady in his earliest seasons, all seem to neglect that this was during his record breaking 10 consecutive playoff game win streak. He was 24-27 years old during that streak. Now he's 40, and he just won the league MVP (his third) and played three playoff games at a 108 passer rating and earned a 115 passer rating in the SB (his eighth). Plus more wins than every other QB ever. GOAT.
Tom Brady's wins: 223
223 / 444 = Tom Brady has won 50% of all Patriots wins ever.
Tom Brady's wins-to-losses: 223-65
Tom Brady's winning percentage: 77.4%
Peyton Manning's winning percentage: 68.5%
Joe Montana's winning percentage: 71.1%
GOAT.
Maybe, but in some fantasy world I have a team in the Super Bowl, Joe Montana is my QB.
If I want a QB for 20 years, Brady is my QB.
Tom Brady's career TD-to-INT ratio: 2.9
Joe Montana's, Drew Brees', and Peyton Manning's career TD-to-INT ratio: all about 2.1-2.2
GOAT.
Let's say Brady wants to drop down to Montana's, Brees', and Manning's TD-to-INT tier; how many INTs does he have to throw for the remainder of his career, with no TDs?
To drop down to a 2.2, Brady would have to throw 63 INTERCEPTIONS and NO TDs.
GOAT.
Joe Montana's, Drew Brees', and Peyton Manning's career TD-to-INT ratio: all about 2.1-2.2
GOAT.
Let's say Brady wants to drop down to Montana's, Brees', and Manning's TD-to-INT tier; how many INTs does he have to throw for the remainder of his career, with no TDs?
To drop down to a 2.2, Brady would have to throw 63 INTERCEPTIONS and NO TDs.
GOAT.
Last edited: