NFL Discussion (Offseason Edition)

[Doom]

I'm surprised that there's not much NFL talk going on, on this forum. Anyways, I've created a thread, dedicated to NFL discussions, despite being the 13th week of the season.

Drew Brees' streak of consecutive games passing one touchdown came to an end Thursday night when he thrown a career-high of five interceptions. The Falcons defense embarrassed the Saints' offense, Brees didn't see them coming.

11-1 for the Falcons!

Let the discuss begin!

 

[JakeYourBooty]

Trust me man I have tried but we do what we can.

 

[Hidden Blaze]

Re: 2012 NFL Discussion Thread

Falcons!!!


Anyway, question I'd like too see if it gets answered and opinions on it and what not, when people talk about who the good teams are, people try to use the whole who has rings and who doesn't theory, how many years do you feel a team can live off my team has a ring, yours doesn't theory for it to be a logical and good reason too say said team is better? Like okay the Jets have 1 Superbowl Ring, where the Falcons do not, but the Jet's Superbowl was in 1968 back when it was still an NFL/AFL championship game, would that make them better then the Falcons? or any other team that doesn't have a Superbowl ring because people who don't play anymore won a Superbowl for the team?

For me, it depends on how many you got before you can set a year, 1 ring I say after about 7 or 8 years, that ring vs no ring shouldn't apply, then I guess after awhile you just keep adding a year from there if you like for each ring said team has. I ask this because I see some 1-2 ring teams fans use the ring theory after not having a Superbowl win in a few years and it's like, the ones who won that ring have nothing to do at all with the game anymore, and if they do it's like maybe 1 or 2 at the most still on the team and that doesn't really make them better.

 

[Doom]

Re: 2012 NFL Discussion Thread

Falcons!!!

Anyway, question I'd like too see if it gets answered and opinions on it and what not, when people talk about who the good teams are, people try to use the whole who has rings and who doesn't theory, how many years do you feel a team can live off my team has a ring, yours doesn't theory for it to be a logical and good reason too say said team is better? Like okay the Jets have 1 Superbowl Ring, where the Falcons do not, but the Jet's Superbowl was in 1968 back when it was still an NFL/AFL championship game, would that make them better then the Falcons? or any other team that doesn't have a Superbowl ring because people who don't play anymore won a Superbowl for the team?

For me, it depends on how many you got before you can set a year, 1 ring I say after about 7 or 8 years, that ring vs no ring shouldn't apply, then I guess after awhile you just keep adding a year from there if you like for each ring said team has. I ask this because I see some 1-2 ring teams fans use the ring theory after not having a Superbowl win in a few years and it's like, the ones who won that ring have nothing to do at all with the game anymore, and if they do it's like maybe 1 or 2 at the most still on the team and that doesn't really make them better.

I'll try to answer this to keep this thread active.

The Jets proved something by winning their Super Bowl, the Falcons haven't proved anything in winning theirs.

The "rings" theory is stupid. To me, it's excuses for fans to make. I'd say the starting players who won the Super Bowl for their team, should earn the rings themselves and not the backups imo because the backup is not part of the main cast that lead the team.

It shouldn't matter about which team is better. If your team wins the Super Bowl, then your team has won it all, no excuses.

I hope that's what you're saying Blazy.

Breaking away from the "rings" topic.

Andrew Luck continues to find ways to win when he threw the game-winning touchdown with no time left to beat the Lions 35-33 yesterday. That makes it five games he made a comeback and win.

The Broncos cliched their Division with their win against the Buccaneers. Congrats!

Both the Eagles and the Cardinals continue to extend their losing streak to eight. I don't know about Whisenhunt's job security, but I think that Reid should lose his job by the end of the season.

 

[TactMrBlack]

The Championship discussion is the only one that matters because that's the only reason they play the game.

 

[Hidden Blaze]

Re: 2012 NFL Discussion Thread

I'll try to answer this to keep this thread active.

The Jets proved something by winning their Super Bowl, the Falcons haven't proved anything in winning theirs.

The "rings" theory is stupid. To me, it's excuses for fans to make. I'd say the starting players who won the Super Bowl for their team, should earn the rings themselves and not the backups imo because the backup is not part of the main cast that lead the team.

It shouldn't matter about which team is better. If your team wins the Super Bowl, then your team has won it all, no excuses.

I hope that's what you're saying Blazy.

Breaking away from the "rings" topic.

Andrew Luck continues to find ways to win when he threw the game-winning touchdown with no time left to beat the Lions 35-33 yesterday. That makes it five games he made a comeback and win.

The Broncos cliched their Division with their win against the Buccaneers. Congrats!

Both the Eagles and the Cardinals continue to extend their losing streak to eight. I don't know about Whisenhunt's job security, but I think that Reid should lose his job by the end of the season.

I'm asking pretty much at what point should the fact the team won a ring not matter too say if they are good now? Like can the Saint's fans say that the Saint's of today are good because of that championship where some of the team could and maybe be different. I've seen Raider fans talk about how the Raiders are a great team cause of the 3 rings, never mention the last came in the 80's so too them that makes the Raiders now a good team.

I say what matters is what you're doing now honestly, I mean if you're 11-1 now and then a team that won the Superbowl before has a 5-6 record, who's the better team right now?

The Championship discussion is the only one that matters because that's the only reason they play the game.

But as I said above, a team can't ride that championship forever, they have to make sure they play good, have to make sure they at least have a chance to win another Superbowl to be considered the best, the Cowboys have won championships but they are no where near being a better team then some of the non-superbowl champs, they suck right now.

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: 2012 NFL Discussion Thread

I'm asking pretty much at what point should the fact the team won a ring not matter too say if they are good now? Like can the Saint's fans say that the Saint's of today are good because of that championship where some of the team could and maybe be different. I've seen Raider fans talk about how the Raiders are a great team cause of the 3 rings, never mention the last came in the 80's so too them that makes the Raiders now a good team.

The Saints fans can say that the team is good because of the championship because its essentially the same team. Obviously some personnel changes happen, but many of the players who won that Super Bowl are still there, which in turn makes them at least capable of being in the great team discussion. As for the Raiders, I haven't heard anyone say that this year's team is good because they used to win Super Bowl's years ago, that's just stupid.

Anyhow, to make this simple, the Kansas City Chiefs and New York Jets have both won a Super Bowl. Does anyone think that makes this years teams worthy of any sort of discussion? I'll answer that...nope.

 

[Hidden Blaze]

Re: 2012 NFL Discussion Thread

The Saints fans can say that the team is good because of the championship because its essentially the same team. Obviously some personnel changes happen, but many of the players who won that Super Bowl are still there, which in turn makes them at least capable of being in the great team discussion. As for the Raiders, I haven't heard anyone say that this year's team is good because they used to win Super Bowl's years ago, that's just stupid.

Anyhow, to make this simple, the Kansas City Chiefs and New York Jets have both won a Super Bowl. Does anyone think that makes this years teams worthy of any sort of discussion? I'll answer that...nope.

The fans have, I meant like the fans use that too say there team that's doing crap this year, is good because they won a Superbowl in the past, if you are a past Superbowl Champion, and you're doing sucky now that means the other teams got better, i.e you're not as good as that team at the moment, so there for they would be the better team correct?

 

[TactMrBlack]

Are the Cowboys a better team right now then the Falcons....No, but they are a better franchise.

 

[Hidden Blaze]

Re: 2012 NFL Discussion Thread

Are the Cowboys a better team right now then the Falcons....No, but they are a better franchise.

That's the point of my question, does having a Superbowl ring make you a better team now? Cause I see fans always go with that whole we got a ring you don't we're better, when we're talking about at the moment not of all time.

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: 2012 NFL Discussion Thread

That's the point of my question, does having a Superbowl ring make you a better team now? Cause I see fans always go with that whole we got a ring you don't we're better, when we're talking about at the moment not of all time.

I think what Tact meant by better "franchise" is what you should look at here. Sure the Cowboys are a better franchise than Atlanta if you look at their all time numbers and Super Bowl victories. By that token, one could argue that the Cleveland Browns (now the Baltimore Ravens) are a better franchise since they won numerous championships before the Super Bowl existed. However, just because they won those and have a long history does not mean they are better than Atlanta this year. Anyone who tries to say their team is better because of its past accomplishments is not being entirely honest with themselves.

Now, with that being said, I personally don't think Atlanta is all that good, regardless of their record. I think they're below the Patriots, Texans, Broncos, Giants, Packers and 49ers right now and would not be betting on them to even make the Super Bowl, let alone win it. Just my two cents.

 

[TactMrBlack]

I think what Tact meant by better "franchise" is what you should look at here. Sure the Cowboys are a better franchise than Atlanta if you look at their all time numbers and Super Bowl victories. By that token, one could argue that the Cleveland Browns (now the Baltimore Ravens) are a better franchise since they won numerous championships before the Super Bowl existed. However, just because they won those and have a long history does not mean they are better than Atlanta this year. Anyone who tries to say their team is better because of its past accomplishments is not being entirely honest with themselves.

Now, with that being said, I personally don't think Atlanta is all that good, regardless of their record. I think they're below the Patriots, Texans, Broncos, Giants, Packers and 49ers right now and would not be betting on them to even make the Super Bowl, let alone win it. Just my two cents.

Yes thank you. This is exactly what I meant.

 

[JakeYourBooty]

Falcons don't wanna face the Giants again in the playoffs.

 

[Hidden Blaze]

Re: 2012 NFL Discussion Thread

I think what Tact meant by better "franchise" is what you should look at here. Sure the Cowboys are a better franchise than Atlanta if you look at their all time numbers and Super Bowl victories. By that token, one could argue that the Cleveland Browns (now the Baltimore Ravens) are a better franchise since they won numerous championships before the Super Bowl existed. However, just because they won those and have a long history does not mean they are better than Atlanta this year. Anyone who tries to say their team is better because of its past accomplishments is not being entirely honest with themselves.

Now, with that being said, I personally don't think Atlanta is all that good, regardless of their record. I think they're below the Patriots, Texans, Broncos, Giants, Packers and 49ers right now and would not be betting on them to even make the Super Bowl, let alone win it. Just my two cents.

Then we all are on the same picture then, people use the ring too say who is better this year, which can't work. Now the Giants will be a really big test for the Falcons, we'll see what happens in a few weeks but I don't know they seem to be on fire this year, beat the Saints, beat the Broncos, if they beat the Giants that will be big for them. Just got to hope Matt doesn't melt in the playoffs.(get it, melt? matty ice?)

 

[Petty]

Re: 2012 NFL Discussion Thread

I Agree with Fuji here. But the Cincinnati Bengals is winning the Super Bowl this year so get ready boys. It's been a long time coming.