2020 NFL Thread v. Tom Brady aging better than Mila Kunis

[jingle.boy]

On the topic of GOAT of GOATs ... who is the (mostly) undisputed GOAT in Baseball.  I mean, people can argue it all they want in football, but I'm not sure how anyone can't conceded that it's Brady.  Basketball?  Jordan or Lebron argument still exists.  Hockey? Gretz, and it ain't even close.  No one not named Don Cherry legitimately feels otherwise.  But in baseball... who is it?  Give me two names even.  I'm willing to bet we'd see a dozen different combinations of names.

Take it to the MLB thread if need be.

[Stadler]

Babe Ruth.

I never saw Jordan or LeBron play, but I have seen Gretzky play.  I was playing hockey regularly at that time, and (thought I) knew the game.  I was sitting up in the 300's at the Hartford Civic Center, and so I could see the whole ice pretty clearly.   There were times when I simply could not understand what he was doing on the ice, and yet, seconds later, the play was in front of him, he had the puck and was basically "running" the game.   I've never seen anything like it, frankly, and for that I think he changed the game.

I think given what came before, Babe Ruth did the same thing. When he hit 29 homers in 1919, it was more than the league leaders in the TWO PREVIOUS seasons combined. When he hit 54 the following year, it was more than the last THREE years combined, including his, and the last SIX years if you don't include his.  When he hit 29, the NL leader hit 12. When he hit 54, the NL leader hit 15.  Add to that his average, AND the fact that he was an All-Star pitcher (two time 20-game winner, 3-0 in World Series, with an 0.87 ERA), and I think people have been playing catch up to him for decades.

My second: Joe DiMaggio.

[Anguyen92]

I know everybody is comparing Brady to Jordan now, but Jordan being 6-0 in finals and having to play defense too gives him the edge still IMO. Brady still great of course, and being driven and committed at this age is his biggest edge. Wonder how his teammates feel about it always being about him? D was the MVP.

Shouldn't affect them much.  They got what they wanted.  They get paid big money and now they have a Super Bowl Championship on top of it.  I don't think media attention, in any way, should affect the team atmosphere since media is always trying their best to twist things to get the eyeballs on them (which apparently on ESPN they always talk about Brady and Lebron.  No matter what).

[Stadler]

I know everybody is comparing Brady to Jordan now, but Jordan being 6-0 in finals and having to play defense too gives him the edge still IMO. Brady still great of course, and being driven and committed at this age is his biggest edge. Wonder how his teammates feel about it always being about him? D was the MVP.

Shouldn't affect them much.  They got what they wanted.  They get paid big money and now they have a Super Bowl Championship on top of it.  I don't think media attention, in any way, should affect the team atmosphere since media is always trying their best to twist things to get the eyeballs on them (which apparently on ESPN they always talk about Brady and Lebron.  No matter what).

I've not done extensive research on this stuff, but I am familiar with Lawrence Taylor on the Giants, and almost all his teammates - including Phil Simms, who took more shit from Parcells than any three people on the team, all the while Taylor was doing blow and cavorting with hookers - say they are in some form or fashion, grateful for having played with them.  I don't know for a fact, but I think after a certain point, the personal jealousies go out the window, and a rising tide raises all boats.  I can't say that's the same for everyone - people leave the team all the time for their own reasons, some of which are most certainly that kind of jealousy - but generally. 

[bosk1]

What a weird postseason, not a single game with 4th quarter drama. Congrats to Bucs fans I guess, the number of which I assume has doubled in the past year purely by coincidence I’m sure.

I nailed most of my prediction including TB 31, except the flag-assisted score came at the end of the first half and asshole receiver drops kept KC’s point total down. Brady played well, made mostly really easy throws from a clean pocket. Pressure rate difference the highest in SB history. Would love to see the game if the QBs switched teams. Reid exposed badly, zero adjustments. Mahomes a warrior playing 1 on 11 football, or 1 on 22 I guess and making absolutely ludicrous throws. Ran a total of 497 yards avoiding the pass rush on a foot that needs surgery. Brady’s brainpower in selecting Tampa cannot be overstated. What a stacked team. More proof games are usually won in the trenches.

Why oh why can’t we ever have a Super Bowl without without obvious penalty discrepancy controversy? Really detracts from the product the NFL is trying to put out there. Bucs likely win without any of those flags being thrown. However that overturned int because of the tricky-tack hold was a huge swing point in the game.

Reid now has to honestly assess his roster, Mahomes has been masking a lot of deficiencies. His “weapons” were exposed as well as Kelce is the only reliable guy. Hill is drop-prone and neutralized by a strong pass rush preventing long routes from developing.

I know everybody is comparing Brady to Jordan now, but Jordan being 6-0 in finals and having to play defense too gives him the edge still IMO. Brady still great of course, and being driven and committed at this age is his biggest edge. Wonder how his teammates feel about it always being about him? D was the MVP.

I'm not sure how anyone could say there was a "penalty discrepancy controversy," unless they had an ax to grind.  There was a "discrepancy" for sure.  But only because KC kept committing dumb penalties that hurt them.  No controversy. 

And KC did not have a problem with his receivers being overly drop-prone either.  Yes, passes were dropped.  But most of those were on plays that had good coverage where the passes were contested if not tipped by the defenders, and the pressure on Mahomes resulted in far less than perfect passes.  It's not like Mahomes was sitting back throwing perfect touch passes to wide open guys who were just dropping them for no reason. 

Anyhow, for something we will probably NOT disagree on related to game day:  Got up early yesterday and started an 8-hour low and slow no a pork shoulder.  For the game, had that with my wife's awesome homemade slaw, some homemade jalapeno poppers, and other snacks.  It was a great food day.  Just finished some leftovers for lunch.

[KevShmev]

Damn some of you for making me defend Tom Brady, but I've never gotten the arrogant dick vibe from him.  He is hyper competitive and expects the most out of everyone around him, and yeah he can be kind of sore loser on the rare occasions when he loses in the playoffs , but you always hear almost nothing but glowing praise of him from ex-teammates and ex-coaches.  To me, if you are still arguing against him, you are either a massive hater or utterly clueless.  His greatness is more than obvious at this point.

As for the GOAT of all sports, I don't think it makes sense to compare those from team sports to those in individual ones, so when looking at just team sport goats, I'd have to put Brady ahead of Jerry Rice now in football and in the number 2 slot in the all-time team sports GOAT convo.  Gretzky is still number 1 by a wide margin in my book.  Some will still say Jordan is number 1, but I am not sure he is even number 1 in his own sport anymore, much less overall.

[pg1067]

On the topic of GOAT of GOATs ... who is the (mostly) undisputed GOAT in Baseball.  I mean, people can argue it all they want in football, but I'm not sure how anyone can't conceded that it's Brady.  Basketball?  Jordan or Lebron argument still exists.  Hockey? Gretz, and it ain't even close.  No one not named Don Cherry legitimately feels otherwise.  But in baseball... who is it?  Give me two names even.  I'm willing to bet we'd see a dozen different combinations of names.

Take it to the MLB thread if need be.

For me, it's Hank Aaron, but you're right.  It's not even remotely beyond argument.  Some, like Stadler, say Babe Ruth and point to the fact that he was the best pitcher in the game before becoming the best hitter.  I don't think you'll getting a ton of folks putting DiMaggio in the conversation, but you will get a lot of folks arguing for Willie Mays.  You'll even get some Barry Bonds votes.  The biggest problem with baseball is comparing pitchers to non-pitchers.

[Cool Chris]

Baseball has maybe changed more in the past 100 than the other major sports. Though I recall hearing once that in 1950 the general consensus for greatest player of all time was Ty Cobb, and in 2000 it was Ruth. I cannot say what people in 1950 were thinking about MLB's GOAT, but if remotely accurate, it can show how perceptions can change over time.

On topic... just saw/heard the clip of the dude who crashed the field. I didn't know about that till just now. Kevin Harlan calls dudes crashing the field better than any sportscaster calls anything.

[T-ski]

Rumor has it the guy who ran onto the field put money down on whether or not someone would run onto the field.

Bold.

[hunnus2000]

Rumor has it the guy who ran onto the field put money down on whether or not someone would run onto the field.

Bold.

Yep - he made a LOT of money!

He was also advertising for a friend who owns a porn site. 

[Stadler]

Baseball has maybe changed more in the past 100 than the other major sports. Though I recall hearing once that in 1950 the general consensus for greatest player of all time was Ty Cobb, and in 2000 it was Ruth. I cannot say what people in 1950 were thinking about MLB's GOAT, but if remotely accurate, it can show how perceptions can change over time.

On topic... just saw/heard the clip of the dude who crashed the field. I didn't know about that till just now. Kevin Harlan calls dudes crashing the field better than any sportscaster calls anything.

If it's the guy I'm thinking of, I heard that too; it was great.    "Put some pants on, man!!!"

[Stadler]

On the topic of GOAT of GOATs ... who is the (mostly) undisputed GOAT in Baseball.  I mean, people can argue it all they want in football, but I'm not sure how anyone can't conceded that it's Brady.  Basketball?  Jordan or Lebron argument still exists.  Hockey? Gretz, and it ain't even close.  No one not named Don Cherry legitimately feels otherwise.  But in baseball... who is it?  Give me two names even.  I'm willing to bet we'd see a dozen different combinations of names.

Take it to the MLB thread if need be.

For me, it's Hank Aaron, but you're right.  It's not even remotely beyond argument.  Some, like Stadler, say Babe Ruth and point to the fact that he was the best pitcher in the game before becoming the best hitter.  I don't think you'll getting a ton of folks putting DiMaggio in the conversation, but you will get a lot of folks arguing for Willie Mays.  You'll even get some Barry Bonds votes.  The biggest problem with baseball is comparing pitchers to non-pitchers.

I tried to set up my vote for The Babe with the Gretzky story.  There are hundreds of truly great, top shelf players in all four major sports leagues throughout their history, but only a handful in each that legit changed the game for generations, or were so far ahead that others couldn't really change the game because they couldn't do what that "great" could do.  I have yet to see a hockey player dominate a game like Gretzky, even when he was off the puck, hell, even when he was off the ICE (teams used to game their line changes to take advantage of time when Gretzky was off the ice).   I certainly do not question The Hammer's bona fides, and I'm sure there's an argument that he did all that under conditions that most other players didn't have to endure.  But there hasn't been a player that advanced the statistics of the MLB game like Ruth did.   He didn't just set records, he set entirely new standards.  And he was, to my knowledge, the last to dominate all phases of the game at the major league level.

[KevShmev]

I tried to set up my vote for The Babe with the Gretzky story.  There are hundreds of truly great, top shelf players in all four major sports leagues throughout their history, but only a handful in each that legit changed the game for generations, or were so far ahead that others couldn't really change the game because they couldn't do what that "great" could do.  I have yet to see a hockey player dominate a game like Gretzky, even when he was off the puck, hell, even when he was off the ICE (teams used to game their line changes to take advantage of time when Gretzky was off the ice).   I certainly do not question The Hammer's bona fides, and I'm sure there's an argument that he did all that under conditions that most other players didn't have to endure.  But there hasn't been a player that advanced the statistics of the MLB game like Ruth did.   He didn't just set records, he set entirely new standards.  And he was, to my knowledge, the last to dominate all phases of the game at the major league level.

Fair points about Babe Ruth, but he dominated when the league was segregated, so I think that dings him a little, no?  It does seem like baseball is hard to narrow down to just two or three guys when discussing their GOAT.  Some will say Ruth, some will say Mays, some will say Cobb, some will say Aaron, some will say Bonds, some will even say Jeter (which always makes me ).

Gretzky seems to get not much more than a cursory mention in most GOAT conversations these days in the media (Brady vs Jordan seems to be the consensus 1a vs 1b in team sports now), but I think that has more to do with the disrespect hockey in general gets.  But of the four major pro sports here in North America, he is the most obvious unquestioned GOAT in his sport.  Brady is the closest now (only those screaming "Spygate!" are still the only holdouts when it comes to calling him the football GOAT, and of course some old timers who might still swear by Joe Namath or Bart Starr ), but he doesn't have the statistical and regular season dominance that Gretzky had. 

[pg1067]

I tried to set up my vote for The Babe with the Gretzky story.  There are hundreds of truly great, top shelf players in all four major sports leagues throughout their history, but only a handful in each that legit changed the game for generations, or were so far ahead that others couldn't really change the game because they couldn't do what that "great" could do.  I have yet to see a hockey player dominate a game like Gretzky, even when he was off the puck, hell, even when he was off the ICE (teams used to game their line changes to take advantage of time when Gretzky was off the ice).   I certainly do not question The Hammer's bona fides, and I'm sure there's an argument that he did all that under conditions that most other players didn't have to endure.  But there hasn't been a player that advanced the statistics of the MLB game like Ruth did.   He didn't just set records, he set entirely new standards.  And he was, to my knowledge, the last to dominate all phases of the game at the major league level.

Fair points about Babe Ruth, but he dominated when the league was segregated, so I think that dings him a little, no?  It does seem like baseball is hard to narrow down to just two or three guys when discussing their GOAT.  Some will say Ruth, some will say Mays, some will say Cobb, some will say Aaron, some will say Bonds, some will even say Jeter (which always makes me ).

Gretzky seems to get not much more than a cursory mention in most GOAT conversations these days in the media (Brady vs Jordan seems to be the consensus 1a vs 1b in team sports now), but I think that has more to do with the disrespect hockey in general gets.  But of the four major pro sports here in North America, he is the most obvious unquestioned GOAT in his sport.  Brady is the closest now (only those screaming "Spygate!" are still the only holdouts when it comes to calling him the football GOAT, and of course some old timers who might still swear by Joe Namath or Bart Starr ), but he doesn't have the statistical and regular season dominance that Gretzky had.

I agree with pretty much all of this (both Kev and Stadler), but even with the points made about Ruth, there is nothing even approaching a consensus.

Yes, Ruth was the last player to be both a dominant pitcher and hitter.  My rebuttal to that is that is that he was only a true regular pitcher for four seasons.  The only guy I can think of who had a similar trajectory was the much hyped Rick Ankiel, who was a regular starter for a few seasons before an injury cut his pitching career short.  After returning from his injury, he was able to put together seven respectable (but unremarkable) seasons as an outfielder.  And, of course, you have the even more overhyped Shohei "Don't Tell Me" Ohtani.

As far as Gretzky, there is still a very vocal minority that will argue for Mario Lemieux, but those arguments typically come with a "when he was healthy" modifier (much like the anti-Brady arguments always seem to focus on off-the-field nonsense).  Basketball seems to be pretty evenly split (almost entirely on generational lines) between James and Jordan, with a few holdouts for guys like Bryant and Abdul-Jabbar.

[King Postwhore]

[KevShmev]

Yes, Ruth was the last player to be both a dominant pitcher and hitter.  My rebuttal to that is that is that he was only a true regular pitcher for four seasons.  The only guy I can think of who had a similar trajectory was the much hyped Rick Ankiel, who was a regular starter for a few seasons before an injury cut his pitching career short.  After returning from his injury, he was able to put together seven respectable (but unremarkable) seasons as an outfielder.  And, of course, you have the even more overhyped Shohei "Don't Tell Me" Ohtani.

As far as Gretzky, there is still a very vocal minority that will argue for Mario Lemieux, but those arguments typically come with a "when he was healthy" modifier (much like the anti-Brady arguments always seem to focus on off-the-field nonsense).  Basketball seems to be pretty evenly split (almost entirely on generational lines) between James and Jordan, with a few holdouts for guys like Bryant and Abdul-Jabbar.

Bryant has zero argument to be the GOAT of basketball (he's not even top 5 by any stretch of the imagination), but I think that while Jordan still has a good lead on James, the gap has been closed a little, and could close even more in the next two or three years depending on if James gets more rings and how many. Granted, there will always be those "Jordan is the GOAT no matter what" people who are impossible to reason with, so there is that.  Super Mario was awesome, but I think players should be judged on what they did, not what they could have done.  It's doubtful that Mario could have caught Gretzky anyway, but the way things played out, it is really not close.

[KevShmev]

Hot take: Don't be surprised if Mahomes does not get back to the Super Bowl any time soon.  Sounds crazy, right?  But if you had said 10 years ago after GB beat Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl, "Aaron Rodgers won't make it back to another Super Bowl for the next decade," you would have gotten laughed out of the state. 

The way the Chiefs lost Sunday could have a long term effect on their team.  They didn't just lose, they got beat up physically, and they looked soft.  It reminded of the 1999-2001 Rams who looked mostly invincible on offense for three straight years before getting punked in the Super Bowl...and they were never the same.  Same thing could happen to the Chiefs. "But they still have Mahomes, Kelce and Tyreek Hill!"  Yeah, and those Rams still had Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce, and how did that turn out post-2001?

The key will be how the Chiefs regroup this offseason.  Anyone else see about how Brady was texting teammates all last week telling them to take to the Chiefs cause they were nearly last in the NFL in yards allowed after contact?  The obvious implication there was that they were soft and would crumble if you hit them enough, which they totally did. And now the rest of the NFL has seen it.  Think of Mike Tyson after Buster Douglas.  He still won some big fights, but that aura of invincibility was gone forever.  I think it will be for these Chiefs as well.  That is not to say they still won't win a lot of games, or score a lot of points, or put up a lot of yards, but I don't think they will scare teams on a weekly basis any more. 

[romdrums]

Not to diminish Ruth’s contributions to baseball, but he put up those numbers when there no teams west of the Mississippi, no air travel (most MLB road trips at the time were by train), no relief pitchers, no fireballing closers, and only 8 teams in the American League (National League as well).  His feats did inspire the term “Ruthian”, and the only other athletes I’ve heard get a term like that are Pavel Datsyuk with Datsyukian, and Michael Jordan with Jordan-esque. 

On a hockey related note, the first guy not named Gretzky or Lemieux in the top 15 NHL single season point totals is Steve Yzerman, who had 155 points for the 88-89 Red Wings.  Gretzky has 8 of the top 10 single season point totals.  That’s ridiculous.

[KevShmev]

On a hockey related note, the first guy not named Gretzky or Lemieux in the top 15 NHL single season point totals is Steve Yzerman, who had 155 points for the 88-89 Red Wings.  Gretzky has 8 of the top 10 single season point totals.  That’s ridiculous.

Indeed.  To me, it's still just insane to think that if you took away every goal Gretzky ever scored, he'd still be the all-time points leader in NHL history simply based on assists.

And, oh yeah, he scored the most goals of anyone ever, too.  Insane. 

[Cool Chris]

I have no idea who Pavel Datsyuk is, and have never heard anything described as Datsyukian.

Kev's take may be hot bit it isn't scorching. I would say if Mahomes isn't back in a year or two, it could very well be never.

[Stadler]

Hot take: Don't be surprised if Mahomes does not get back to the Super Bowl any time soon.  Sounds crazy, right?  But if you had said 10 years ago after GB beat Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl, "Aaron Rodgers won't make it back to another Super Bowl for the next decade," you would have gotten laughed out of the state. 

The way the Chiefs lost Sunday could have a long term effect on their team.  They didn't just lose, they got beat up physically, and they looked soft.  It reminded of the 1999-2001 Rams who looked mostly invincible on offense for three straight years before getting punked in the Super Bowl...and they were never the same.  Same thing could happen to the Chiefs. "But they still have Mahomes, Kelce and Tyreek Hill!"  Yeah, and those Rams still had Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce, and how did that turn out post-2001?

The key will be how the Chiefs regroup this offseason.  Anyone else see about how Brady was texting teammates all last week telling them to take to the Chiefs cause they were nearly last in the NFL in yards allowed after contact?  The obvious implication there was that they were soft and would crumble if you hit them enough, which they totally did. And now the rest of the NFL has seen it.  Think of Mike Tyson after Buster Douglas.  He still won some big fights, but that aura of invincibility was gone forever.  I think it will be for these Chiefs as well.  That is not to say they still won't win a lot of games, or score a lot of points, or put up a lot of yards, but I don't think they will scare teams on a weekly basis any more.

I think there's a lot of good ideas in there, and a lot to think about.  I don't know that you're completely right, but I think there's a lot of truth in there.  I don't count out Kelce and Mahomes, but I'm not really high on Hill; he's fast, but I don't know that he's a great receiver.   And who else is there after that? Everyone else there is now an answer for. 

[TAC]

I think there's a lot of good ideas in there, and a lot to think about.  I don't know that you're completely right, but I think there's a lot of truth in there.  I don't count out Kelce and Mahomes, but I'm not really high on Hill; he's fast, but I don't know that he's a great receiver.   And who else is there after that? Everyone else there is now an answer for.

It's all Mahomes. Kelce can be intimidated and if a defense can account for Hill, the Chiefs could have a tough road back.

[hunnus2000]

So the question I have - Have NFL players merged onto the same highway that NBA players are on where they determine what teams they want to play for and demanding trades and recruiting other teammates to come here and win a championship.

I mean, this offseason is barely 3 days old and all of the activity regarding players still under contract possibly moving to other teams is mind boggling!

It's going to be fun to watch. 

[pg1067]

Bryant has zero argument to be the GOAT of basketball (he's not even top 5 by any stretch of the imagination), but I think that while Jordan still has a good lead on James, the gap has been closed a little, and could close even more in the next two or three years depending on if James gets more rings and how many. Granted, there will always be those "Jordan is the GOAT no matter what" people who are impossible to reason with, so there is that.  Super Mario was awesome, but I think players should be judged on what they did, not what they could have done.  It's doubtful that Mario could have caught Gretzky anyway, but the way things played out, it is really not close.

I don't follow basketball enough to have an opinion, but if you come out here, you'll get a lot of folks very loudly champion Bryant as the GOAT of the NBA.

Hot take: Don't be surprised if Mahomes does not get back to the Super Bowl any time soon.  Sounds crazy, right?  But if you had said 10 years ago after GB beat Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl, "Aaron Rodgers won't make it back to another Super Bowl for the next decade," you would have gotten laughed out of the state.

I was thinking about this yesterday and don't disagree at all.  I think there's a lot to be said for a team providing the "blueprint" for how to beat Team X.  Only time will tell.

I have no idea who Pavel Datsyuk is, and have never heard anything described as Datsyukian.

I'd be shocked if anyone outside of the greater Detroit era ever used the term "Datsyukian."  I know exactly who he is and wouldn't have the slightest idea what that adjective might mean.  I've seen lots of athletes get adjectivized, but none with the staying power of "Ruthian."

I'm not really high on Hill

Come on, man...get the lyrics right!

[El Barto]

I think there's a lot of good ideas in there, and a lot to think about.  I don't know that you're completely right, but I think there's a lot of truth in there.  I don't count out Kelce and Mahomes, but I'm not really high on Hill; he's fast, but I don't know that he's a great receiver.   And who else is there after that? Everyone else there is now an answer for.

It's all Mahomes. Kelce can be intimidated and if a defense can account for Hill, the Chiefs could have a tough road back.

Invest in a real run game and give opposing D's something other than Mahomes to worry about. All I've heard is how smart the kid is. Give him options to exploit opposing schemes. I thought a big part of their problem on Sunday was an inability to keep Tampa's D honest. They did try once to establish a ground game and abandoned it early when it wasn't working out.

[El Barto]

I've been mulling over the Babe Ruth thing, and there really aren't too many parallels. There have certainly been two-way players elsewhere, but generally not exceptional at all aspects. Deion was kind of a crappy receiver, for example. The one that jumps out at me is Sammy Baugh. We don't really look at players from back then because the game was so different, but the game is so different in large part because of him. He was the original quarterback as we know it. Before him the forward pass was just something you did if you couldn't run. Sammy weaponized it. And as for being a crossover player, the man played quarterback, defensive back, and punter, and he led the league in passing TDs, interceptions, and punt average all in the same year. Obviously he's not Brady, Deion, or Landeta, but his total dominance is why we shouldn't disregard folks who played so long ago. 

[KevShmev]

So the question I have - Have NFL players merged onto the same highway that NBA players are on where they determine what teams they want to play for and demanding trades and recruiting other teammates to come here and win a championship.

I mean, this offseason is barely 3 days old and all of the activity regarding players still under contract possibly moving to other teams is mind boggling!

It's going to be fun to watch. 

I suspect we will now see the trend of NFL stars, similar to NBA stars, using their power and leverage to dictate where they get to play, which I am good with.  The way the NFL is set up now, you can be stuck with the team that drafts you, when taking the rookie contract and being able to franchise players into account.  If a stud gets drafted by the Bengals or Lions and doesn't want to waste most of his 20's stuck on a shitbag franchise, more power to 'em if they can find a way to get the hell out of town. 

[faizoff]

Brady getting sauced up and acknowledging Antoine Winfield's taunting of Tyreek Hill is hilarious to watch. All the guys had a blast today at the parade, Tom with his new 2 million dollar boat throwing Lombardi's around like it's nothing. I really hope the core of the team stays together for next season, rumors are already flying that several players want to restructure their deals including Brady to keep as many players possible.

https://streamable.com/s2611b

[El Barto]

I kind of assume Tampa built this thing with two years in mind, followed by a total cap catastrophe. All of those restructures would make both happen.

[TheCountOfNYC]

So the question I have - Have NFL players merged onto the same highway that NBA players are on where they determine what teams they want to play for and demanding trades and recruiting other teammates to come here and win a championship.

I mean, this offseason is barely 3 days old and all of the activity regarding players still under contract possibly moving to other teams is mind boggling!

It's going to be fun to watch. 

I suspect we will now see the trend of NFL stars, similar to NBA stars, using their power and leverage to dictate where they get to play, which I am good with.  The way the NFL is set up now, you can be stuck with the team that drafts you, when taking the rookie contract and being able to franchise players into account.  If a stud gets drafted by the Bengals or Lions and doesn't want to waste most of his 20's stuck on a shitbag franchise, more power to 'em if they can find a way to get the hell out of town.

This sets up a dangerous precedent where bad teams won’t be able to hold on to talent long enough to be able to build a competitive team around them. It’s one thing if it’s a situation like the Texans where they’re actually wasting the talent of Watson by not only not building around him but outright getting rid of the talent that was in place like Hopkins. It’s another thing if every player is able to pull an Eli Manning and just refuse to play for a team before that team even has a chance to build around them.

[El Barto]

Teams still hold the leverage. Somebody like Watson can bitch all he wants, but the Texans still own him per the contract that he agreed to. If they can get the compensation they want to make a trade worth while they'll do it. If they can't he can either play for them or sit out, which would save them a bundle. If he's really got the balls to back up his conviction he can pull a Barry Sanders. It would be a shame for it to come to that, but the deal is that Houston committed a great deal of money to keep him around, and he agreed to play for them.

[Stadler]

And sort of a corollary to El Barto's point, players want to play.  For every Eli Manning, there's a Le'Veon Bell that wants the Benjamin's and will play for the Jets for a paycheck rather than win with the Steelers.   The Jets, no matter how bad they are, will never want for players to man the roster.

[Dream Team]

Whether you like Brady or hate him, this is hilarious:

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/tom-brady-super-bowl-55-recap/

Keep in mind you'll only understand "BradyVision" if you've watched Marvel's "WandaVision".

Still trying to sort out how I feel about that ref job. Formal NFL players like Esiason and Chris Simms used the word "dirty". This crap happens often enough that you're never 100% sure if the games are on the level.

Thought of something this morning. When the Yankees won 4 World Series in 5 years from 1996-2000 there were no headlines that read "Derek Jeter wins 4th World Series". Same with Aikman winning 3 SBs in 4 years or even when Montana got his 4th the headlines were "Forty Niners . . . ". The cultish behavior is a recent thing, where a subset of delirious fans discount 52/53 player's contributions and lay them all at the feet of one person who plays half the game. Shrugs.

[Anguyen92]

Thought of something this morning. When the Yankees won 4 World Series in 5 years from 1996-2000 there were no headlines that read "Derek Jeter wins 4th World Series". Same with Aikman winning 3 SBs in 4 years or even when Montana got his 4th the headlines were "Forty Niners . . . ". The cultish behavior is a recent thing, where a subset of delirious fans discount 52/53 player's contributions and lay them all at the feet of one person who plays half the game. Shrugs.

As I mentioned before, media/fans is going to twist facts and turn them into headlines that gets eyes on them.  If I'm a player on the Bucs and won the Super Bowl, I could care less about the headlines reading "Tom Brady wins #7." The players on that roster on the team and getting paid a good amount of money and won a championship, the pinnacle achievement of their career.  That's all it matters to to the players.

When the New York Rangers won the cup in 1994 after a 54 year drought, did those fans care that Mark Messier and bunch of Oilers players from their 80s dynasty and former Blackhawks players from the early 90s was a huge part of the team winning the cup?  No.  They only cared that the team under the name, New York Rangers, finally got the job done.  Won 16 games in the playoffs.  All that matters.  54 year drought.  Over. Period.  End story.

I guess to sum it up, wouldn't you want Tom Brady on your team that you follow?

[Stadler]

Whether you like Brady or hate him, this is hilarious:

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/tom-brady-super-bowl-55-recap/

Keep in mind you'll only understand "BradyVision" if you've watched Marvel's "WandaVision".

Still trying to sort out how I feel about that ref job. Formal NFL players like Esiason and Chris Simms used the word "dirty". This crap happens often enough that you're never 100% sure if the games are on the level.

Thought of something this morning. When the Yankees won 4 World Series in 5 years from 1996-2000 there were no headlines that read "Derek Jeter wins 4th World Series". Same with Aikman winning 3 SBs in 4 years or even when Montana got his 4th the headlines were "Forty Niners . . . ". The cultish behavior is a recent thing, where a subset of delirious fans discount 52/53 player's contributions and lay them all at the feet of one person who plays half the game. Shrugs.

Because there is no player on either of those teams at the historical calibre of Tom Brady.  It's not a "cult", it's the reality of the situation.  He impacted that team immeasurably, on the field and off.  He raised everyone's game with his work ethic, his enthusiasm, his experience, his discipline, his determination...