NFC Championship - Los Angeles Rams vs. New Orleans Saints

[Stanger37]

Both him and Cowherd...Ugh.

I appreciate Colin for the most part. I have no respect for Skip though. Colin will go off the rails and I have to turn him off, but for the most part I don't think he is far off. Much like today, it is a shame that ESPN wants to do nothing but talk about the missed DPI. It was horrendous and I don't know how you miss it. But if it is in the first Q, no one talks about it. Saints were up 13-0 at home and had the Rams dazed and confused. Gurley ran for 10 years. Terrible play calling and zero 2nd half adjustments were the reasons they lost. It is not like they did not get the ball to start OT. Brees threw a pick, his 5th in 6 games, averaging 6.2yds an attempt in the playoffs. Even the bomb to Ginn should not have been caught, either picked off or deflected. Blame the refs all you want, there were terrible face masks, a few delay of games and non-PI calls all game. Saints faded and the Rams took advantage. He missed Thomas for a TD and there was zero reason to throw the ball with 1:55 left on the 13 yard line when the Rams only had 1 TO left.

 

[Do7]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Sith Lord Emperor Belichick will *not* be denied !

One day the chosen one will destroy the evil empire.

 

[rmontro]

I just think it was easier to build a dominant team in those days.

Maybe it was, but then why didn't anyone else do it? I mean there were other dominant teams, but none that won five championships in seven years. I'm not saying Lombardi is greater than Belichick (not saying he isn't either), but each era has its own unique challenges, that's why I don't like to compare them. Lombardi never had Belichick's Cleveland fiasco either.

As far as listening to him crow about the GOAT that's why I won't be. Even though I agree with him on the GOAT thing.

Well, you can't hardly disagree on the GOAT thing. Last year there was a lot of debate on Rodgers vs Brady. Rodgers has lost a lot of steam on that front in the last few years.

 

[Do7]

Maybe it was, but then why didn't anyone else do it? I mean there were other dominant teams, but none that won five championships in seven years. I'm not saying Lombardi is greater than Belichick (not saying he isn't either), but each era has its own unique challenges, that's why I don't like to compare them. Lombardi never had Belichick's Cleveland fiasco either.


Well, you can't hardly disagree on the GOAT thing. Last year there was a lot of debate on Rodgers vs Brady. Rodgers has lost a lot of steam on that front in the last few years.

With Brady making to his 9th Superbowl, he's definitely distance himself from the whole Brady vs Rodgers. It also doesn't help considering he defeated Rodgers this year and they are now 1-1. Rodgers from a skill and talent position I still think is better, but as you mentioned he lost a lot of steam. It's now to the point people consider Brees better than him, which is stupid. Rodgers at this point has to win at least 2 more rings in order to open that argument again since Brady widen the gap. (Granted he plays in a weak division, and has benefited from getting HFA throughout the playoffs as well as weak competition in the AFC until recently.) I don't think Brady will win this year fortunately.

But I definitely think this will light a spark under Rodgers seeing Brady playing in his 9th SB. Rodgers knows it's about rings at this point. I hope this gives him a sharp focus.

As for Bill and Lombardi. I'll still go with Lombardi being the greatest coach. 13 championships speak for themselves. Now Belichick is the greatest coach of the modern era. That I will give. I'll never play anyone higher than Lombardi in regards to coaches.

 

[XPack]

Well, you can't hardly disagree on the GOAT thing. Last year there was a lot of debate on Rodgers vs Brady. Rodgers has lost a lot of steam on that front in the last few years.

Which makes it obvious that it was never about Brady. Pats are so much more than Brady and can still win with him below par, whereas Rodgers is GB. Our season rides on his form. Whenever we say Brady vs Rodgers we are actually comparing Brady+ Rest of Pats+BB vs Rodgers.

 

[sschind]

No sheeeeettt the dude didn’t even get knocked over yesterday he is well protected and he ain’t going anywhere as long as they keep winning however they play the worst teams in all of football year in year out I’m still waiting for someone to point out who the toughest qbs he has played in his division the last 10-12 yrs...
The qbs In his division this yr Sam Darnold josh Allen and Brock Osweiler.... effffffinnnngggggg sweet!!!! Charity!!!!! The best qb he has faced In his division the last 10 yrs maybe chad Pennington!?!? Mark Sanchez and **** rexy beat him but who is the best qb he has faced!? EXACTLY effing slop!!! It’s disgusting the charity they effing get!!!!! Such a joke!!!!

Yeah, because the vikings, Bears and Lions have had incredible QBs over the last 10-12 years.

 

[sschind]

With Brady making to his 9th Superbowl, he's definitely distance himself from the whole Brady vs Rodgers. It also doesn't help considering he defeated Rodgers this year and they are now 1-1. Rodgers from a skill and talent position I still think is better, but as you mentioned he lost a lot of steam. It's now to the point people consider Brees better than him, which is stupid. Rodgers at this point has to win at least 2 more rings in order to open that argument again since Brady widen the gap. (Granted he plays in a weak division, and has benefited from getting HFA throughout the playoffs as well as weak competition in the AFC until recently.) I don't think Brady will win this year fortunately.

But I definitely think this will light a spark under Rodgers seeing Brady playing in his 9th SB. Rodgers knows it's about rings at this point. I hope this gives him a sharp focus.

As for Bill and Lombardi. I'll still go with Lombardi being the greatest coach. 13 championships speak for themselves. Now Belichick is the greatest coach of the modern era. That I will give. I'll never play anyone higher than Lombardi in regards to coaches.

How can Lombardi have 13 championships he was only the coach for 9 years. I think you are confusing Lombardi with the Packers as a franchise.

Coming from a Packer I'm not surprised to hear that. I'll listen to arguments and they are legit but I don't agree.

 

[sschind]

Maybe it was, but then why didn't anyone else do it? I mean there were other dominant teams, but none that won five championships in seven years. I'm not saying Lombardi is greater than Belichick (not saying he isn't either), but each era has its own unique challenges, that's why I don't like to compare them. Lombardi never had Belichick's Cleveland fiasco either.


Well, you can't hardly disagree on the GOAT thing. Last year there was a lot of debate on Rodgers vs Brady. Rodgers has lost a lot of steam on that front in the last few years.

Come on, say it, get off the fence

Once a dominant team was built back then I think it was easier to keep it together which went a long way to 5 championships in 7 years.

There will still be Packer fans who will argue on the GOAT thing but like you said, I'm not sure how you can.

 

[rmontro]

But I definitely think this will light a spark under Rodgers seeing Brady playing in his 9th SB. Rodgers knows it's about rings at this point. I hope this gives him a sharp focus..

Rodgers has fallen so far behind at this point, he may not even think it's worth thinking about. The real question is will he even ever get another ring?
This may make me a bad Packer fan, but: At this point I would think multiple rings are very unlikely, and one more ring is no better than 50/50, and even that may be optimistic.

Come on, say it, get off the fence

Once a dominant team was built back then I think it was easier to keep it together which went a long way to 5 championships in 7 years.

Like I said, I don't believe in comparing eras. Lombardi's and Belichick's accomplishments are both quite impressive. I see Lombardi as a more inspiring figure though, his persona transcends football better than Belichick's IMO. All those great quotes and such.

And sure it was easier to keep a great team together back then. But again, Lombardi won 5/7, but no one else has. If it was that easy, why has no one else been able to accomplish it?

 

[Do7]

How can Lombardi have 13 championships he was only the coach for 9 years. I think you are confusing Lombardi with the Packers as a franchise.

Coming from a Packer I'm not surprised to hear that. I'll listen to arguments and they are legit but I don't agree.

Oops my bad!

 

[pacmaniac]

At least we don't have to talk about Bostick having the biggest blunder ever in a conference championship game. How on earth do you line up in the neutral zone, wiping out a game winning INT?

 

[BrokenArrow]

Rodgers has fallen so far behind at this point, he may not even think it's worth thinking about.

Nonsense. Brady fell into a perfect situation by pure happenstance. You can talk about Super Bowls being the measure of a QB's greatness all you want, but wins are a TEAM achievement, not a QB achievement. You look at Hasselbeck, Flacco, Dilfer, Eli Manning, McMahon, Doug Williams and I'll take Marino over every one of them every single time. You can include Bradshaw and Aikman too.

I've always said if you took Brady and Rodgers and swapped them places 12 years ago and left everything else the same, the Patriots would probably have at least 1 more SB win and we'd probably have 1 less. And I'll stand by that all day long. Brady has never had to carry his team on his back. Rodgers very rarely hasn't.

 

[Quientus]

Nonsense. Brady fell into a perfect situation by pure happenstance. You can talk about Super Bowls being the measure of a QB's greatness all you want, but wins are a TEAM achievement, not a QB achievement. You look at Hasselbeck, Flacco, Dilfer, Eli Manning, McMahon, Doug Williams and I'll take Marino over every one of them every single time. You can include Bradshaw and Aikman too.

I've always said if you took Brady and Rodgers and swapped them places 12 years ago and left everything else the same, the Patriots would probably have at least 1 more SB win and we'd probably have 1 less. And I'll stand by that all day long. Brady has never had to carry his team on his back. Rodgers very rarely hasn't.

Had it been Rodgers in NE and Brady in GB, I can almost guarantee then the Pats would have fewer Sb’s and the Packers likely 2-3 ... - Rodgers isn’t the Leader that Brady is and teams dont fight as hard for Rodgers than they would for Brady ... or Favre for that matter ...

 

[Do7]

Had it been Rodgers in NE and Brady in GB, I can almost guarantee then the Pats would have fewer Sb’s and the Packers likely 2-3 ... - Rodgers isn’t the Leader that Brady is and teams dont fight as hard for Rodgers than they would for Brady ... or Favre for that matter ...

Dude you are giving Brady WAY too much credit, and not enough credit to Rodgers if you've drawn that conclusion. And considering how well NE's system is based on how well other QB's have done in the system whether Brady was out due to suspension or injury, a guy like Rodgers skillset, and with a coach like Belichick, let alone playing in a weak conference, and the weaker conference, and having a better GM, would've ended up with just as many rings if not more. And considering how shoddy The Packers oline has been at times, let alone our defense giving up so many points, I don't see how you've drawn that conclusion. Plus I don't see how you've drawn that teammates play any lesser for Arodg than Brady. That seems like a bias opinion if you ask me.

 

[Quientus]

Dude you are giving Brady WAY too much credit, and not enough credit to Rodgers if you've drawn that conclusion. And considering how well NE's system is based on how well other QB's have done in the system whether Brady was out due to suspension or injury, a guy like Rodgers skillset, and with a coach like Belichick, let alone playing in a weak conference, and the weaker conference, and having a better GM, would've ended up with just as many rings if not more. And considering how shoddy The Packers oline has been at times, let alone our defense giving up so many points, I don't see how you've drawn that conclusion. Plus I don't see how you've drawn that teammates play any lesser for Arodg than Brady. That seems like a bias opinion if you ask me.

1) I’ve always been of the opinion that Belichick without Brady would have still most likely have been in contention with more SB wins than Brady without Belichick would have had.

2) I’m not giving Brady “too much credit”, however, I am acknowledging that Brady is a Way better Leader than Rodgers ever will be ... which brings me to point ...

3) Rodgers and Belichick wouldn’t have worked, not with How Rodgers behaves and “goes solo” because he (Rodgers) disagrees with a play called ... Belichick would never accept a player going rouge, especially publically ... Case in point, those that have done that in NE have been shipped off quickly, as has been proven multiple times already ...

4) You cant coach leadership ... its a trait you either have or dont ... My grand father used to tell me there are 3 types of (Leaders) ... those who are born to lead (Great leaders), those that in time can become adequate leaders, but never Great and those who never will be able to lead ...

5) You Call AFC East a weak conference ? Please ... check the AFC easts stats outside their division and compare the NFC Norths ditto ... the result might really surprise you ... (who am I kidding ? I forgot you dont look up stats ..)

Here’s a tidbit for you:
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/11...-east-is-one-of-nfls-strongest-divisions/amp/

And another
https://www.bostonsportsonline.com/weak-division/

Patriots record against outside division and more
http://offthemonstersports.com/2018...-is-absolutely-mind-blowing-updated-10-17-18/

Patriots record is actually better outside their division than in it ... huh ??? How can that be when the AFC East is so weak ?????

And its not like the NFC North outside the past 2 seasons has been that competitive either ...

6) you Call me biased, yet you never hold Rodgers accountable for anything ... Like Rodgers, you always blame everyone and everything Else ...

7) Trying to protect a QB knowing that you have to give him more than 6-9 seconds, because you already know it wont be a Quick pass, I Can imagine, is more than difficult, Regardless ...

 

[pacmaniac]

Had it been Rodgers in NE and Brady in GB, I can almost guarantee then the Pats would have fewer Sb’s and the Packers likely 2-3 ... - Rodgers isn’t the Leader that Brady is and teams dont fight as hard for Rodgers than they would for Brady ... or Favre for that matter ...

Brady cannot make that pinpoint pass on 3rd and 10 in SB XLV, or even the 20 yard TD pass that put the Packers up 21-3. But perhaps Brady would have played better in certain other games Rodgers played poorly in - such as the 2011 loss to the Giants, and the 2014 loss to Seattle.

 

[pacmaniac]

I'm also glad Sean Payton got robbed here. Payback for him robbing Favre of a second SB appearance.

 

[Quientus]

Brady cannot make that pinpoint pass on 3rd and 10 in SB XLV, or even the 20 yard TD pass that put the Packers up 21-3. But perhaps Brady would have played better in certain other games Rodgers played poorly in - such as the 2011 loss to the Giants, and the 2014 loss to Seattle.

I agree that Rodgers overall is more talented than Brady ever was, however, saying Brady wouldn’t have been able to make those Plays you mention would be incorrect ... as Brady has thrown lasers into tight spots on numerous occassions ... most lately in the recent AFCCG on those third Down passes ...

More often than not, what seperates Brady from pretty much every other QB that Plays and have played the past 10+ seasons, is that while he might have played “Sub-par” most of the regular season, when push comes to shove Brady play once the Pats reach the play offs will rise ...

I'm also glad Sean Payton got robbed here. Payback for him robbing Favre of a second SB appearance.

When the non Call on the DPI happened I was thinking “Bounty Gate” Karma ! Lol - And I too was glad that the “Aints” lost

 

[sschind]

Rodgers has fallen so far behind at this point, he may not even think it's worth thinking about. The real question is will he even ever get another ring?
This may make me a bad Packer fan, but: At this point I would think multiple rings are very unlikely, and one more ring is no better than 50/50, and even that may be optimistic.


Like I said, I don't believe in comparing eras. Lombardi's and Belichick's accomplishments are both quite impressive. I see Lombardi as a more inspiring figure though, his persona transcends football better than Belichick's IMO. All those great quotes and such.

And sure it was easier to keep a great team together back then. But again, Lombardi won 5/7, but no one else has. If it was that easy, why has no one else been able to accomplish it?

I do agree that when it comes to inspiration Lombardi leads the way and personality wise there is no comparison. You are right that both have accomplished incredible things.

 

[Do7]

1) I’ve always been of the opinion that Belichick without Brady would have still most likely have been in contention with more SB wins than Brady without Belichick would have had.

2) I’m not giving Brady “too much credit”, however, I am acknowledging that Brady is a Way better Leader than Rodgers ever will be ... which brings me to point ...

3) Rodgers and Belichick wouldn’t have worked, not with How Rodgers behaves and “goes solo” because he (Rodgers) disagrees with a play called ... Belichick would never accept a player going rouge, especially publically ... Case in point, those that have done that in NE have been shipped off quickly, as has been proven multiple times already ...

4) You cant coach leadership ... its a trait you either have or dont ... My grand father used to tell me there are 3 types of (Leaders) ... those who are born to lead (Great leaders), those that in time can become adequate leaders, but never Great and those who never will be able to lead ...

5) You Call AFC East a weak conference ? Please ... check the AFC easts stats outside their division and compare the NFC Norths ditto ... the result might really surprise you ... (who am I kidding ? I forgot you dont look up stats ..)

Here’s a tidbit for you:
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/11...-east-is-one-of-nfls-strongest-divisions/amp/

And another
https://www.bostonsportsonline.com/weak-division/

Patriots record against outside division and more
http://offthemonstersports.com/2018...-is-absolutely-mind-blowing-updated-10-17-18/

Patriots record is actually better outside their division than in it ... huh ??? How can that be when the AFC East is so weak ?????

And its not like the NFC North outside the past 2 seasons has been that competitive either ...

6) you Call me biased, yet you never hold Rodgers accountable for anything ... Like Rodgers, you always blame everyone and everything Else ...

7) Trying to protect a QB knowing that you have to give him more than 6-9 seconds, because you already know it wont be a Quick pass, I Can imagine, is more than difficult, Regardless ...

1. So you're making my point that Rodgers would've thrived in that system, and based off how well that system is, combined with Rodgers skillset, and having a coach like Belichick, chances are Rodgers would do equally as well as opposed to Brady doing better than Rodgers here in GB.

2. Sure you were. For starters when you said players play harder for Brady as opposed to Rodgers. You have no way of proving that, as you would have to look into the hearts of each player. I'm certain those who play for Rodgers played just as hard as those for Brady, because both of those guys are capable of leading teams to victories, and you have a shot as long a they are on the field. Everyone leads differently. If you prefer Brady over Rodgers in regards of leadership that's fine. I prefer Brees personally so I won't argue with you there.

3. We've already established that McCarthy has a tendency to do questionable play calling decisions. So just because Rodgers changes the play every now and then, doesn't mean that he would be a total rebel with Belichick. With an OC like McDaniels calling plays, and playing into a system like NE's that helps create schemes to have receivers open, chances are Rodgers wouldn't have to free style.

4. Funny there's also leading by example, and considering Rodgers has played lights on more times than not, in which we've won the division and constantly making the post season outside these two years. As I told you earlier it takes leadership to lead your team down the field in order to win games, as well as comebacks. Again if you prefer Brady's leadership over Arodg, that is fine. That's personal preference.

5. I am tickled that you're trying to make an argument in regards to the AFC East not being a weak division, let alone compare it to our division which is tougher. How many times has that division produced more than one team making the post season in comparison to the NFCN? C'mon man.

As for The Patriots record goes against NFC teams, yeah but timing is everything, and they only have to play those teams once. Take for instance, do you honestly believe The Patriots would have their way if they had to play in the NFC South, with Brees, Ryan, and Newton? The NFC North, with Rodgers, The Vikings defense, Chicago's defense? Or the time when Detroit was formidable? The NFC West with the LOB at their peak, or San Fran under the Harbaugh era? or The Rams now? How about Arizona when they were formidable? It's not saying much when typically in the AFC over the years you could win the division with 9-7.

6. I have showed evidence in which I have blatantly held Rodgers accountable. Don't even try it. Matter of fact I will bring up an example.

Can someone explain to me how we were in Seattle territory 3 times in the third quarter without putting up any points?
I get we weren't 100% but this was ours for the taking.

I agree that this had better be McCarthy's last season, but I will not be defending Rodgers tomorrow. This one is on him and the offense.

The defense imo did their part to hold up, but with so many 3 and outs by the offense it was only a matter of time before the dam broke. Pitiful!

So I have held Rodgers accountable when the situation calls for it. I have stated on multiple occasions that my issues with Rodgers this season is pertaining to his GAME, as he could play better. The difference between you and I is that you're making it seem as Rodgers is largely responsible for how the season went when he is just a part of it. I've never absolved him of any blame. All this stuff regarding up his leadership, throwing people under the bus (which he never has), no one was making a huge fuss prior to these past two years as it never was an issue as we've been making the post season and usually winning the division outside these past two years, and last year was due to injury. Rodgers was always the first to blame himself when things went wrong, whether it was or not.

7. I agree you that Rodgers can hold on to the ball too long, and some of the sacks are on him, but you and I both know that the Oline has failed protecting him which results in him scrambling. He gets a fair share of the blame, but it's not ALL on him. If you're implying that Brady would've done better, I disagree.

 

[sschind]

Oops my bad!

No problem, I can figure some things out.

Montro brought up a good point about the difference in personalities between Lombardi and Belichick. Belichick may be a better Xs and Os guy and lets be honest things are way more complicated in todays offense but Lombardi was more inspiring. Players just wanted to play their hearts out for him. It has been said that many of those HOFers from the glory years probably wouldn't have had their HOF careers had they played somewhere else. Lombardi motivated his players. I'm sure Belichick does too but he just seems more of the "do as I say or your *** is gone" type guy whereas Lombardi was a "play your heart out every down and you, therefore we, will succeed" Lombardi was a guy you wanted to play your heart out for while Belichick is a guy you are afraid not to play your heart out for. That's not to say Lombardi didn't ride his player hard.

 

[Do7]

No problem, I can figure some things out.

Montro brought up a good point about the difference in personalities between Lombardi and Belichick. Belichick may be a better Xs and Os guy and lets be honest things are way more complicated in todays offense but Lombardi was more inspiring. Players just wanted to play their hearts out for him. It has been said that many of those HOFers from the glory years probably wouldn't have had their HOF careers had they played somewhere else. Lombardi motivated his players. I'm sure Belichick does too but he just seems more of the "do as I say or your *** is gone" type guy whereas Lombardi was a "play your heart out every down and you, therefore we, will succeed" Lombardi was a guy you wanted to play your heart out for while Belichick is a guy you are afraid not to play your heart out for. That's not to say Lombardi didn't ride his player hard.

I like both coaches personally, and I feel I would've thrived under both of them. But Lombardi...He's just so charismatic and some of those quotes he says still lights a fire under me. But at the same time Belichick I feel would challenge me in ways Lombardi wouldn't. These two are polar opposites to one another and yet they bring out the best in their players.

 

[Quientus]

No problem, I can figure some things out.

Montro brought up a good point about the difference in personalities between Lombardi and Belichick. Belichick may be a better Xs and Os guy and lets be honest things are way more complicated in todays offense but Lombardi was more inspiring. Players just wanted to play their hearts out for him. It has been said that many of those HOFers from the glory years probably wouldn't have had their HOF careers had they played somewhere else. Lombardi motivated his players. I'm sure Belichick does too but he just seems more of the "do as I say or your *** is gone" type guy whereas Lombardi was a "play your heart out every down and you, therefore we, will succeed" Lombardi was a guy you wanted to play your heart out for while Belichick is a guy you are afraid not to play your heart out for. That's not to say Lombardi didn't ride his player hard.

I *think* your gravely mistaken ...

Players are not going to play harder for someone they fear ... And IF it were even remotely true, dont you think We would have heard more about it ?

Leading based on fear doesnt Yield a hard Working team ... a team that respects their Leader will work Haarder and better ...

 

[sschind]

I'm also glad Sean Payton got robbed here. Payback for him robbing Favre of a second SB appearance.

Wasn't Favre in 2 SBs?

I assume you meant 3rd. If I could elevate any coach to saint for a day it would be Payton for doing just that. Any team, coach, player, waterboy, what have you, who contributes to knocking the vikings out of the playoffs automatically moves to the top of my list, at least temporarily.

Favre could have stayed with the Jets and I wouldn't have minded a half dozen more SB appearances by him but once anyone goes to the vikings its no go.

 

[Raptorman]

1. So you're making my point that Rodgers would've thrived in that system, and based off how well that system is, combined with Rodgers skillset, and having a coach like Belichick, chances are Rodgers would do equally as well as opposed to Brady doing better than Rodgers here in GB.

Joe Flacco would have thrived in system. In NE it's not about the QB as much as it is the defense. Yes, the QB has to win a game every once in a while. But really, when you team defense averages giving up only 19 ppg for 20 years in a row, you will win a lot of those games.