NFL Playoffs: Championship Sunday

DDC1990

eagle eye wrote:

If Rodgers decides he is done in Green Bay there's a perfect team for him, that's the Colts. I could see him winning with them.

I think he might come to Tampa to back up Brady.

Foxtrol

Barney92 wrote: »

Of their five drafts prior they had 11 picks in the first two rounds, 9 were used on defensive players (the majority on those in the secondary (7 of the 11 on players in the secondary). Yes, it would have been great had they picked a great corner like Alexander instead of Love. However, they easily could have picked another King (who isn't the worst), Josh Jones (not on the team), Quinten Rollins, Damarious Randall (decent but wasn't outstanding in his first year) or Josh Jackson (again who isn't the worst but isn't great). They can't keep picking defensive players and hoping they come good because that plan hasn't gotten them over the line thus far. Although I have to say it's not like they've been entirely unsuccessful with it.

Ultimately if instead of Love they'd gotten another Alexander I'd be happy. However, if instead of Love they'd gotten another player on the same level as King, Jones, Rollins or Jackson then what's the point because they wouldn't be any better than King out there.

'If I'd gambled on the horse race and won I'd be happy but if I lost I wouldn't'.

Packers decided to not make their team better now and it probably cost them making it to the Super Bowl - a better OL, DB, S, or WR would have put them in a better position to win yesterday. The front office in the draft did their version of taking a field goal, the less aggressive 'it might work out for us down the line' option.

Inquitus

Irishjg wrote: »

If Rodgers had took off with the ball towards the end zone and made up say 4 or 5 yards then maybe the coaches would have considered a 4th down attempt. I remember shouting at the tv for him to run. He had some space in front to work with.

Yep he defo had a fair bit of space, see below screenshot. I don't think I'd make the call to give the ball back to Brady with 2 minutes left, better to risk it on 4th down imho, I am also convinced Rodgers could have got very close to the TD on the 3rd down play :

Kev8360

Inquitus wrote: »

Yep he defo had a fair bit of space, see below screenshot. I don't think I'd make the call to give the ball back to Brady with 2 minutes left, better to risk it on 4th down imho, I am also convinced Rodgers could have got very close to the TD on the 3rd down play :

Screenshots can be deceptive - Rodgers is looking to throw and while yes he has space in front of him Jason Pierre Paul has a good angle on him and Suh is chasing him down from behind. I don’t think he gets to the end zone but he could have made it to or inside the 5 and made the decision much tougher for lafleur to take the FG instead of going for it.

DDC1990

Kev8360 wrote:

Screenshots can be deceptive - Rodgers is looking to throw and while yes he has space in front of him Jason Pierre Paul has a good angle on him and Suh is chasing him down from behind. I don’t think he gets to the end zone but he could have made it to or inside the 5 and made the decision much tougher for lafleur to take the FG instead of going for it.

There are also 2 guys on Tonyan one of which is Devin White who is lightning quick and would have got there pretty rapidly.

ELM327

I don't think he could have outpaced JPP so I dont buy the running it approach too much.
That being said, kicking the FG was clearly the wrong decision.

cosatron

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't think he could have outpaced JPP so I dont buy the running it approach too much.
That being said, kicking the FG was clearly the wrong decision.

yes its kinda of hard to believe to be honest, if they failed on the 4th down, tampa would still be on the 8 yard line and backed up. Lefluer had a poor 4th quarter, didn't run the ball enough, left the 2 tackles on islands all day with no help from the tightends and didn't learn much from the first meeting which is very disheartened cause i like him. as for Pettine, i wanted him gone last year, there seems to be too much confusion on defence, like we got caught with 12 men on the field twice last night and didn't play prevent defence on scotty miller touchdown, all in all a sht*tshow.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

No way could he have ran it in. If he did, he would have had to slide before the line of scrimmage. We forgot how quick gaps close in this game. Rodgers alluded to that last week on Pat McAfee. Saying he picked up a fumble and saw loads of room to run to the left but he went 1 or 2 steps and the gap was gone.

Barney92

Foxtrol wrote: »

'If I'd gambled on the horse race and won I'd be happy but if I lost I wouldn't'.

Packers decided to not make their team better now and it probably cost them making it to the Super Bowl - a better OL, DB, S, or WR would have put them in a better position to win yesterday. The front office in the draft did their version of taking a field goal, the less aggressive 'it might work out for us down the line' option.

If I keep gambling on the same type of horses and results don't improve should I keep gambling on them? They'd drafted 7 DBs in the first two rounds in the five drafts before this one. Kevin King was one of them, and whilst I don't blame him he didn't have a great game last night.

On the O line - who in last year's draft (that they could have gotten) would have improved what was the best (or at least amongst the best) O-lines in the league? As for WRs MVS had over 100 yards and a touchdown, Adams 67 and Lazard had 62 yards. They threw for 350 yards. There might have been a better receiver than St Brown to be a fourth choice (or fifth if you count Tonyan). The offence was the best in the league (or at least highest scoring).

The wider point is that three huge plays around half-time cost them dearly:

The pick by Rodgers (the receiver was held on the throw, the only other person you could blame is Rodgers for making it)

Putting King over by himself at the end of the half and not preventing a touchdown

The hit, fumble and injury to Jones

You can't put the pick by Rodgers on the defence, nor the Jones fumble. You can blame King, and I would to some extent. I'd place more blame on whoever called that defence knowing that king had already given up a floated ball over his head. Additionally, it wasn't the defence's call to kick a field goal so you can't blame them for that.

They lost a very close game, which they had chances to do win but to put it down to not drafting a DB over Love or Dillon would be wrong in my book. The defence played very well in parts but it was going to be hard for them to stop Brady at the end (any team would have found that hard).

Foxtrol

Barney92 wrote: »

If I keep gambling on the same type of horses and results don't improve should I keep gambling on them? They'd drafted 7 DBs in the first two rounds in the five drafts before this one. Kevin King was one of them, and whilst I don't blame him he didn't have a great game last night.

On the O line - who in last year's draft (that they could have gotten) would have improved what was the best (or at least amongst the best) O-lines in the league? As for WRs MVS had over 100 yards and a touchdown, Adams 67 and Lazard had 62 yards. They threw for 350 yards. There might have been a better receiver than St Brown to be a fourth choice (or fifth if you count Tonyan). The offence was the best in the league (or at least highest scoring).

The wider point is that three huge plays around half-time cost them dearly:

The pick by Rodgers (the receiver was held on the throw, the only other person you could blame is Rodgers for making it)

Putting King over by himself at the end of the half and not preventing a touchdown

The hit, fumble and injury to Jones

You can't put the pick by Rodgers on the defence, nor the Jones fumble. You can blame King, and I would to some extent. I'd place more blame on whoever called that defence knowing that king had already given up a floated ball over his head. Additionally, it wasn't the defence's call to kick a field goal so you can't blame them for that.

They lost a very close game, which they had chances to do win but to put it down to not drafting a DB over Love or Dillon would be wrong in my book. The defence played very well in parts but it was going to be hard for them to stop Brady at the end (any team would have found that hard).

The draft is always a gamble, the Packers didn't lessen the risk of it turning out poorly, like you noted it has in the past, it just meant there would be a longer gap before they could be judged. The Packers had a free bet and rather than using it on horses in a race now they put it on a race a few years away - meaning even if the horses do win in a few years they've still guaranteed they aren't winning anything this year.

Your argument that the picks might not have improved the team makes no sense, as we have all the evidence we need that Love and Dillon didn't improve the team at all this year (arguably aside from one good performance from Dillon in the snow). At the same time we have numerous rookies selected after them who have been good to great starters in every position I pointed to and would have at worst added depth - the NFL it is not all your starters. They might have picked duds but their picks locked them in to little or not return this year no matter what.

You're right that it was a very close game, the margin for error in the NFL is tiny which means you have to be aggressive at times to make the most of your windows of opportunity - something I feel the Packers have been terrible at over the years. Taking a results focused view of how a process worked can allow mistakes to repeated forever. As the Packers poster humble bragged to me last week, the Packers 'always being in the Super Bowl window' is great but you don't get rings for being in the window. It is night and day how Brady and Brees have been supported by their teams in the twilight of their careers compared to Rodgers.

Carfacemandog

It's strange to be that some are placing blame on Rodgers here, if you hypothetically switch the two qbs right before kick off then tamba bay likely wins by a lot more, going by each of their performances.

Carfacemandog

Carfacemandog wrote: »

It's strange to be that some are placing blame on Rodgers here, if you hypothetically switch the two qbs right before kick off then tamba bay likely wins by a lot more, going by each of their performances.

That’s the thing. The packers need Rodgers to be outstanding to carry them to beat a good team whereas the bucs are good enough to bail Brady out when he’s poor.

Foxtrol

Carfacemandog wrote: »

It's strange to be that some are placing blame on Rodgers here, if you hypothetically switch the two qbs right before kick off then tamba bay likely wins by a lot more, going by each of their performances.

I'll likely be called a hater but when you take into account the OL performance, Brady performed the worst out of the last 4 QBs this weekend.

He was lucky he didn't get picked off more than the 3 times he did and that was when he was rarely under pressure and not playing from behind and needing to force it. There is potential for things to get really bad against the Chiefs.

Barney92

Foxtrol wrote: »

The draft is always a gamble, the Packers didn't lessen the risk of it turning out poorly, like you noted it has in the past, it just meant there would be a longer gap before they could be judged. The Packers had a free bet and rather than using it on horses in a race now they put it on a race a few years away - meaning even if the horses do win in a few years they've still guaranteed they aren't winning anything this year.

Your argument that the picks might not have improved the team makes no sense, as we have all the evidence we need that Love and Dillon didn't improve the team at all this year (arguably aside from one good performance from Dillon in the snow). At the same time we have numerous rookies selected after them who have been good to great starters in every position I pointed to and would have at worst added depth - the NFL it is not all your starters. They might have picked duds but their picks locked them in to little or not return this year no matter what.

You're right that it was a very close game, the margin for error in the NFL is tiny which means you have to be aggressive at times to make the most of your windows of opportunity - something I feel the Packers have been terrible at over the years. Taking a results focused view of how a process worked can allow mistakes to repeated forever. As the Packers poster humble bragged to me last week, the Packers 'always being in the Super Bowl window' is great but you don't get rings for being in the window. It is night and day how Brady and Brees have been supported by their teams in the twilight of their careers compared to Rodgers.

Look, I understand where you are coming from. I'm not saying Love was the best choice they could have made. I don't know if picking someone else would have made a big difference last night. And yes, the picks haven't really paid off this year. Love was never going to play this year unless something crazy happened to Rodgers, and as I've said before I reckon Dillon would have had a bigger role but for his covid experience. Yes, two other player could have helped matters this year but I think when it gets to the level of you reaching NFC championships a lot of it is down to luck or a play here or there. Getting yourself as many chances of being there for that luck to go your way is my preferred method of doing it. I think that is the approach they've taken, and I'm not unhappy with it.

I don't really think you can accuse them of not being aggressive in the last few years. They were also laughed at for the amount they spent on the Smiths, as well as adding Amos and Turner. Then they went and picked another edge rusher. They wanted to add Funchess this year but he opted out. He would've been a nice addition for depth (not that it was needed this year). Since the additions to their defence they've gone 13-3 twice and made it to 2 NFC championships. Obviously they've fallen short both times (once because they were outclassed and once because of silly mistakes). They've done well improving between this year and last year.

The Saints paid a huge amount to keep Hill, money which could have been used elsewhere if they really wanted to give Brees the best chance possible. They also traded away a first rounder to take Marcus Davenport to help the defence and he hasn't been much use. The Bucs this year had huge chunks of their team in place for Brady to come in.

Irishjg

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'll likely be called a hater but when you take into account the OL performance, Brady performed the worst out of the last 4 QBs this weekend.

He was lucky he didn't get picked off more than the 3 times he did and that was when he was rarely under pressure and not playing from behind and needing to force it. There is potential for things to get really bad against the Chiefs.

I must admit I’m more excited about this years Super Bowl than I have been for a few years. This is such a great match up, Kansas City has an arsenal of firepower in offence and the Bucs defence has gotten better throughout the playoffs. Also the Brady factor too. He’s going to want that ring so badly since moving from New England. I just can’t wait for the game.

Foxtrol

Barney92 wrote: »

Look, I understand where you are coming from. I'm not saying Love was the best choice they could have made. I don't know if picking someone else would have made a big difference last night. And yes, the picks haven't really paid off this year. Love was never going to play this year unless something crazy happened to Rodgers, and as I've said before I reckon Dillon would have had a bigger role but for his covid experience. Yes, two other player could have helped matters this year but I think when it gets to the level of you reaching NFC championships a lot of it is down to luck or a play here or there. Getting yourself as many chances of being there for that luck to go your way is my preferred method of doing it. I think that is the approach they've taken, and I'm not unhappy with it.

I don't really think you can accuse them of not being aggressive in the last few years. They were also laughed at for the amount they spent on the Smiths, as well as adding Amos and Turner. Then they went and picked another edge rusher. They wanted to add Funchess this year but he opted out. He would've been a nice addition for depth (not that it was needed this year). Since the additions to their defence they've gone 13-3 twice and made it to 2 NFC championships. Obviously they've fallen short both times (once because they were outclassed and once because of silly mistakes). They've done well improving between this year and last year.

The Saints paid a huge amount to keep Hill, money which could have been used elsewhere if they really wanted to give Brees the best chance possible. They also traded away a first rounder to take Marcus Davenport to help the defence and he hasn't been much use. The Bucs this year had huge chunks of their team in place for Brady to come in.

Picking up guys in FA isn't being aggressive, it is normal practice for every team. Being aggressive in a window is drafting players to win now, restructuring deals to bring in pieces that will help you for a season or two, it is making trades during the season - all of which teams regularly do when they are doing all they can to win now.

Despite how I agree that Hill is not money well spent, at least he is used in games far more than Love or Dillon are. You can roll out the COVID excuse for Dillon but he wasn't getting game time before COVID and for some reason he was miraculously able to recover and play plenty in the snow game before disappearing into an afterthought again.

Yes, the Bucs had huge chunks of their team in place but they built on it in the draft and FA throughout the season. They didn't go into the draft a QB and RB of the future - they went out and got players to help them most to win this year when they know they have a QB to do it.

You're entitled to your opinion in bold but I just don't think it is a winning one. In the playoffs you're facing at least 3 teams that are more than likely making more aggressive moves than you are and putting themselves in a better position to win that given year. As I said earlier, it is the punting or taking the field goal and hoping things work out to get the ball back.

Foxtrol

Irishjg wrote: »

I must admit I’m more excited about this years Super Bowl than I have been for a few years. This is such a great match up, Kansas City has an arsenal of firepower in offence and the Bucs defence has gotten better throughout the playoffs. Also the Brady factor too. He’s going to want that ring so badly since moving from New England. I just can’t wait for the game.

I'm not feeling it at all yet.

Definitely I'm biased but the 49ers defense was much stronger last year than what I've seen from the Bucs and the Chiefs look better on both offense and defense than last year.

Still hoping for an exciting game but fear it could be incredibly one sided

dh1985

Foxtrol wrote: »

The draft is always a gamble, the Packers didn't lessen the risk of it turning out poorly, like you noted it has in the past, it just meant there would be a longer gap before they could be judged. The Packers had a free bet and rather than using it on horses in a race now they put it on a race a few years away - meaning even if the horses do win in a few years they've still guaranteed they aren't winning anything this year.

Your argument that the picks might not have improved the team makes no sense, as we have all the evidence we need that Love and Dillon didn't improve the team at all this year (arguably aside from one good performance from Dillon in the snow). At the same time we have numerous rookies selected after them who have been good to great starters in every position I pointed to and would have at worst added depth - the NFL it is not all your starters. They might have picked duds but their picks locked them in to little or not return this year no matter what.

You're right that it was a very close game, the margin for error in the NFL is tiny which means you have to be aggressive at times to make the most of your windows of opportunity - something I feel the Packers have been terrible at over the years. Taking a results focused view of how a process worked can allow mistakes to repeated forever. As the Packers poster humble bragged to me last week, the Packers 'always being in the Super Bowl window' is great but you don't get rings for being in the window. It is night and day how Brady and Brees have been supported by their teams in the twilight of their careers compared to Rodgers.

Brady was hardly supported in the twilight of his career in New England where he still won three superbowls and lost another. This is the first year Brady has a decent receiving core in a decade.
All the hype in this thread and elsewhere before the game was the packers would have too much on offense and they would pick the bucs apart like they did the rams last week. And the rams were better than the bucs on D. So now they lost it's everyone else's fault bar Rodgers. He didn't really get it done when it was needed. They had the opportunities.

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'll likely be called a hater but when you take into account the OL performance, Brady performed the worst out of the last 4 QBs this weekend.

He was lucky he didn't get picked off more than the 3 times he did and that was when he was rarely under pressure and not playing from behind and needing to force it. There is potential for things to get really bad against the Chiefs.

He made the plays he needed. Of his three INTs, the 1st was the only one I'd categorically say was a terrible throw. It was awful. The 2nd throw wasn't bad, in terms of options, likely TD if Evans catches. Brady overthrew it, and was unlucky that the bounce went right into a defenders hands. Last one was an arm punt basically. Brady likely should've recognised the blitz pre-snap, Evans could've been in for a TD if it's blocked.

3 throws and folks want to say he had a bad game. I wouldn't say he was at his best by any means, there were some other poor throws to the sidelines that you'd expect him to make. He had quite a few drops, which is consistent feature lately for the Bucs offense.

jimmytwotimes 2013

For clutch plays it was clear Rodgers still only trusts Tae Adams

radharc

Carfacemandog wrote: »

It's strange to be that some are placing blame on Rodgers here, if you hypothetically switch the two qbs right before kick off then tamba bay likely wins by a lot more, going by each of their performances.

But Brady adds so much more than his performance on the field. In this hypothetical switch, would Rodgers have recruited Fournette, Gronk and Antonio Brown to join the team? No. Brady has revitalised a dormant franchise in a truly remarkable way. I don’t think anybody disputes that Rodgers is a ‘better’ QB on the field but Brady has proven over his career he has something intangible that has never been seen before.

Foxtrol

dh1985 wrote: »

Brady was hardly supported in the twilight of his career in New England where he still won three superbowls and lost another. This is the first year Brady has a decent receiving core in a decade.
All the hype in this thread and elsewhere before the game was the packers would have too much on offense and they would pick the bucs apart like they did the rams last week. And the rams were better than the bucs on D. So now they lost it's everyone else's fault bar Rodgers. He didn't really get it done when it was needed. They had the opportunities.

Firstly, I've been banging this drum about the Packers throwing away their draft and short changing Rodgers since draft night, including last weekend after they won.

Regarding Brady, this sounds like the usual blinkered approach. Look at the defense Brady had to play with for those twilight years compared to Rodgers. Now Brady didn't have his best weapons in the last few years but it wasn't for lack of trying, they invested numerous early round picks in the offense, they gave up future picks in midseason trades, and brought in bad rep guys they hoped could help.

If you don't want to take my word, maybe you'll take the word of Belichick - stating how they ended up in cap hell this year because they went aggressive trying to win with Brady - they weren't picking QBs of the future in the first round.

https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/1323386676022931456?s=20

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He made the plays he needed. Of his three INTs, the 1st was the only one I'd categorically say was a terrible throw. It was awful. The 2nd throw wasn't bad, in terms of options, likely TD if Evans catches. Brady overthrew it, and was unlucky that the bounce went right into a defenders hands. Last one was an arm punt basically. Brady likely should've recognised the blitz pre-snap, Evans could've been in for a TD if it's blocked.

3 throws and folks want to say he had a bad game. I wouldn't say he was at his best by any means, there were some other poor throws to the sidelines that you'd expect him to make. He had quite a few drops, which is consistent feature lately for the Bucs offense.

Brady was lucky there weren't more than 3 INTs. He had one before halftime that was harder for the defender to drop than catch, another where the defender was in prime position to intercept before Godwin bodied him. Some of his other big time throws where as you described well 'arm punts' that were horribly defended by the Packers.

I heard an on the nose comment this morning, if Winston had that exact same game that Brady did against the Packers the comments would be that the team won despite of him.

BonnieSituation

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm not feeling it at all yet.

Definitely I'm biased but the 49ers defense was much stronger last year than what I've seen from the Bucs and the Chiefs look better on both offense and defense than last year.

Still hoping for an exciting game but fear it could be incredibly one sided

Hopefully the Chiefs ruin them.

Foxtrol

radharc wrote: »

But Brady adds so much more than his performance on the field. In this hypothetical switch, would Rodgers have recruited Fournette, Gronk and Antonio Brown to join the team? No. Brady has revitalised a dormant franchise in a truly remarkable way. I don’t think anybody disputes that Rodgers is a ‘better’ QB on the field but Brady has proven over his career he has something intangible that has never been seen before.

Brady definitely helped with Gronk but any team could have the others if they wanted - Fournette made it through waivers unclaimed and AB was crying to join teams for months but no one wanted to touch that scumbag.

Brady is a fantastic QB but his greatest intangible gift is making many people selectively blind to the huge support he has received during his career when compared to practically every other QB.

TheDoctor

TheDoctor wrote: »

166-90 for the season
7-3 for the playoffs

Buccaneers @ Packers
Bills @ Chiefs

166-90 for the regular season
8-4 for the playoffs

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

Brady was lucky there weren't more than 3 INTs. He had one before halftime that was harder for the defender to drop than catch, another where the defender was in prime position to intercept before Godwin bodied him. Some of his other big time throws where as you described well 'arm punts' that were horribly defended by the Packers.

I heard an on the nose comment this morning, if Winston had that exact same game that Brady did against the Packers the comments would be that the team won despite of him.

He was money in the first half, the touch he put on the TD throws was absolutely elite level. I love how critics want to toss that out because he threw poor balls in the 2nd. He also made an excellent decision to spike the ball to ensure the FG could be kicked, rather than risk a turnover.

All INT aren't of equal value. He wasn't great in the 2nd half, but he was good enough.

Carfacemandog

Carfacemandog wrote: »

It's strange to be that some are placing blame on Rodgers here, if you hypothetically switch the two qbs right before kick off then tamba bay likely wins by a lot more, going by each of their performances.

There’s a big difference emerging today too. Rodgers the better player but here he is bowling up looking for more money straight after a loss, where Brady has gave up some money in his day to keep a stronger team around him.

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

Brady definitely helped with Gronk but any team could have the others if they wanted - Fournette made it through waivers unclaimed and AB was crying to join teams for months but no one wanted to touch that scumbag.

Brady is a fantastic QB but his greatest intangible gift is making many people selectively blind to the huge support he has received during his career when compared to practically every other QB.

You are the worst kind of troll Fox. Was he receiving amazing support when he dragged useless teams to AFCCG and SBs for years? How much help did he have in 2017 when he passed for over 500yds in the SB?

The revisionism is embarrassing here. Brady's Greatest intangible is an all encompassing will to win. This isn't the first championship game where Rodgers has failed to score when given opportunities. 2014 his defense forced 5 turnovers iirc, and he failed to capitalize. Who's to blame for that?

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He was money in the first half, the touch he put on the TD throws was absolutely elite level. I love how critics want to toss that out because he threw poor balls in the 2nd. He also made an excellent decision to spike the ball to ensure the FG could be kicked, rather than risk a turnover.

All INT aren't of equal value. He wasn't great in the 2nd half, but he was good enough.

The two TDs he threw in the first half were thanks to abysmal defending, there was nothing 'absolutely elite' about it.

For the second, it was an arm punt when both Pettine and King had a stroke and decided not to defend a deep pass, when Brady shouldn't have even had the ball if it wasn't for a defender dropping a ball that Brady threw straight into his hands at an absolutely elite level.

For the first, Kevin King made one of the worst timed jumps I've ever seen.

https://twitter.com/WillBrinson/status/1353438297503248385?s=20

Brady did some good things during the game and the Bucs wouldn't have made it to that game without him but by trying to hype up this performance you sound like this video

https://twitter.com/NFL_Memes/status/1048584817351282689?s=20