NFL Thread

[Cactus Drags]

Whoever said about ITV's coverage.

That reminds me to say, their coverage was fucking terrible. The people they had present it had notihng to do with American Football. Gabby Logan seemed to know jack shit, as did Clive Allen and Martin Johnson didn't seem that enthusiastic or knowledgable about the sport, the other guy did seem to, maybe because he was an american. So I won't be watching on ITV next year.

The Jet's will win it next year.

←

[SeanB]

Terrell Owens played much better than I thought he would be capable of, and had a great game. Evidently there was talk of him being selfish, could someone let me in on who was saying this and what it was about?

[Guest Bluesman]

You wouldn't by any chance have any specific examples, would you?

[lanky316]

Whoever said about ITV's coverage.

That reminds me to say, their coverage was fucking terrible. The people they had present it had notihng to do with American Football. Gabby Logan seemed to know jack shit, as did Clive Allen and Martin Johnson didn't seem that enthusiastic or knowledgable about the sport, the other guy did seem to, maybe because he was an american. So I won't be watching on ITV next year.

The Jet's will win it next year.

←

Gary Imlach is probably the most knowledgeable non-American American Football-wise. Martin Johnston used to play for the Leicester Panthers, the American was a defensive lineman for Carolina, and Clive Allen was a kicker for the London Monarchs. All were very knowledgeable, although you have to take Johnston's involvement in Rugby into account. Granted, Gaby Logan wasn't great, neither was James Cracknell, but Merril hogue was on-form as usual. ITV's coverage wasn't that bad.

←

[Cactus Drags]

I've always enjoyed Imlach's stuff, especially way back when Channel 4 had Red 42 and Blitz. He used to write his own stuff and everything, he just comes across as very genuine. Nick Halling is similar, but he'll always be a close second in my eyes.

[IAceI]

I prefer Cadle to Halling but Halling was pretty entertaining when he was doing the pre-game stuff.

I hope the Skins can do something next season, Ramsey will step it up a notch in my eyes and hopefully we'll get someone like Mike Williams and Braylon Edwards in the draft. Up with the Skins I say, and hope.

[reyrey619]

The Pats are CLEARLY better than the Cowboys because there's no chance in hell the 'Boys would have been able to keep Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin and their killer offensive line in today's game. They basically were the Yankees of the NFL, buying whoever they wanted and mortgaging their entire future for one short run at titles. There's no way any team should ever be able to duplicate what the Pats have done unless the salary cap is inexplicably removed at some point in the future.

←

[naiwf]

They were only able to keep them because there was no cap, and they could offer more money than anyone else, hence the Yankees comparison. Being able to keep all of those guys while still bringing in future HOF'ers like Charles Haley, Deion Sanders and others is something that the modern day Pats can't do because they have a restriction to work with that the Cowboys (and Niners) of the 90's didn't need to worry about.

The Pats would easily be as dominant as the Cowboys if they were able to keep all of their core players and bring in any and every stud free agent they wanted now. Hell they won 3 out of 4 with maybe one Hall of Famer on the team, while the 'Boys had at least 6 (The Triplets, Deion, Haley & Allen). Give them all the money in the world to play with like Dallas had, and they could win another 2 or 3 easily, while the 90's Cowboys would be the modern equivalent of the Indianapolis Colts with a bunch of superstars on offense but no money to pay for a defense.

Edited February 8, 2005 by naiwf

[reyrey619]

but the Pats DID bring in pro bowl caliber players such as Corey Dillion, Rodney Harrison, Ted Washington, and Keith Traylor. They might not be future HoF guys, but they're certainley great players, and they all weren't there from the start. I'd consider it a dynasty, but the fact that the 2001 team is a much different team then the 2003 team. and the 2004 team puts a bit of a damper on it.

Edited February 8, 2005 by reyrey619

[naiwf]

But they had to give up players and/or draft picks in order to do so. In the old system they would have just been able to stockpile talent without worrying about how much they were spending. Granted, they've been able to make starters out of no names, but the Cowboys of the 90's wouldn't have needed to worry about whether they should keep guys like Lawyer Milloy (last year) or Ty Law (this year) in their secondary since they would have been able to keep them as well as Tyrone Poole, Asante Samuel, Randall Gay and Eugene Wilson. You have to admit that that's a huge advantage that the Cowboys had over the Pats, who had no right to win the title this year given that their secondary was pathcwork at best for half of the season.

[reyrey619]

yea, I agree that having no cap was a big advantage, but the Cowboys were still more dominant in my eyes. Don't take anything away from those Buffalo teams, they were good teams. And the Cowboys dominated them not once, but twice in the Super Bowl. While the Pats on the other hand, have won all 3 of their games by a field goal.

[livid]

yea, I agree that having no cap was a big advantage, but the Cowboys were still more dominant in my eyes. Don't take anything away from those Buffalo teams, they were good teams. And the Cowboys dominated them not once, but twice in the Super Bowl. While the Pats on the other hand, have won all 3 of their games by a field goal.

←

[Javs]

yea, I agree that having no cap was a big advantage, but the Cowboys were still more dominant in my eyes. Don't take anything away from those Buffalo teams, they were good teams. And the Cowboys dominated them not once, but twice in the Super Bowl. While the Pats on the other hand, have won all 3 of their games by a field goal.

←

And? So what if it is by an average of 3 points? They still won the game to simply even go to the Superbowl 3 out of the past 4 years is an accomplishment, but to win them? Even more. Like naiwf's saying, the Cowboys wouldn't be able to last with the salary cap today. Besides, the dominance was solely based on the skills of that O-Line. I'm not saying that Irvin, Smith, Aikman, etc. weren't awful players, but let's put it this way. Irvin was a good wideout, but he also had his flaws (like his uncanty knack of finding cocai...I mean, trouble ). And Aikman was horribly overrated. Don't get me wrong, he was a good Quarterback, but probably wouldn't have done as well as he did if he hadn't had weapons like Smith and Irvin and the best O-Line in football. Smith as well. I think Smith's a good back, don't get me wrong, but to say he's the greatest and that he deserves the rushing title is wrong, because somebody up north in Detroit did more than Emmitt and he didn't have any talent around him.

I just feel that the management team of the Pats and the coaching staff deserve some baddass recognition. If the Pats stay consistent and get to at least the AFC Championship next year, I'm calling Belicheck the best coach in NFL history, because to do that with all the stuff that's going to be happening, and all the stuff that's happened these past few years, you'll be hard pressed to find a coach that did that well with all those problems. And this is coming from a 49ers fan who thinks that Bill Walsh is the greatest coach of all-time lol.

And don't even get me started on Tom Brady. The guy's just amazing and for anyone to say he sucks, I would love to suck that bad and win 3 out of 4 Superbowls.

←

Edited February 9, 2005 by Javs

[reyrey619]

Tom Brady does not suck, but hes also not the best QB in the NFL, which is what people say he is. He won 3 championships which is more then every QB in the league, but that doesn't make him better. I hate that argument. Thats what everyone uses around here. "Tom Brady is better then Manning because he wins". If Manning had a defense like that, I'm sure he'd have 3 Super Bowls...

[jonnycomelately]

Tom Brady does not suck, but hes also not the best QB in the NFL, which is what people say he is. He won 3 championships which is more then every QB in the league, but that doesn't make him better. I hate that argument. Thats what everyone uses around here. "Tom Brady is better then Manning because he wins". If Manning had a defense like that, I'm sure he'd have 3 Super Bowls...

←

[King Ellis]

ITV's coverage could have been worse. They could have poached Mike "he goes high, BUT NOT IN THE RICKY WILLIAMS SENSE BWHAHAHAHAHA!" Carleson

[naiwf]

How many times must I say this, Peyton Manning could NEVER have the Pats' defense behind him because, wait for it. . . . he makes TOO MUCH MONEY! Add in the fact that Harrison & James have been taking up another huge chunk of the cap, and that is why the Colts will never win a Super Bowl. They'll probably have to pay through the nose for guys like Wayne & Stokley now, or lose them to free agency when their contracts run out, making their defense even weaker. It's a vicious cycle they'll never be free from until Manning retires.

EDIT: The whole debate comes down to whether you think the guy who leads his team to the Super Bowl is more important than the guy who puts up the best stats. In my mind, Manning is not better than Brady simply because he can never beat him, and almost always CHOKES in the big game, something Brady's never done. The same applies to Culpepper, who always disappears in the postseason, or the game that would get them there.

Edited February 9, 2005 by naiwf

[reyrey619]

Brady is a good QB IMO. A top 5 QB behind Manning, Culpepper, and possibly Mcnabb. But hes not the best QB in the league, as people here, and in the media constantly say. Manning and Culpepper are better then him, no doubt in my mind.

How many times must I say this, Peyton Manning could NEVER have the Pats' defense behind him because, wait for it. . . . he makes TOO MUCH MONEY! Add in the fact that Harrison & James have taking up another huge chunk of the cap, and that is why the Colts will never win a Super Bowl. They'll probably have to pay through the nose for guys like Wayne & Stokley now, or lose them to free agency when their contracts run out, making their defense even weaker. It's a vicious cycle they'll never be free from until Manning retires.

Edited February 9, 2005 by reyrey619

[Guest Brady_3for3]

Tom Brady went to Michigan, thats all ya need to know. You want to beat Peyton Manning, just dress up in Gator Blue & Orange and Peyton will have a brain anerysm

[Guest BacknBlackHoez]

Vick > *, still!