One can assume? They blew off all the confetti and brought the media onto the field for interviews before they even had a chance to review it. Close scoring plays are ALWAYS reviewed by the booth thoroughly prior to extra points. This one was clearly not, and it wasn't an obvious touchdown. Maybe there wasn't enough to over turn it, but it still should have been reviewed before the field was stormed. That was some BS contradictory to the rules of the NFL.
You can have Manning and Rogers all day. I'll keep Brady. Manning was a great QB, but not in the playoffs so much. Rogers is a great QB and a great athlete, but he's more than half way through his career and not even close to Brady. I'll take the QB who leads his team to the SB, and gives them a chance to win them all! Led his team from behind to lead in 6 of 7 SB's in the last 2 minutes of the game! Only one he didn't was the Eagles game, when they were already ahead .
You saw this happen? I saw nothing except the game instantly ending and everyone celebration IMMEDIATELY, with no time for review. Would they have really cleared off the field and undone the confetti if they determined they needed to review it? I don't think they would have. Smarter refs would have announced that the game is not over until the score is confirmed. It was a close one, too. Not like an obvious walk in TD. ALL scores are supposed to be reviewed. It's not supposed to stand automatically unless someone objects.
So the league decided for the first time since the rule was enacted that they MUST review every scoring play, that they would just skip this one? I don't think I'm the one assuming anything, I think you are assuming they didn't with no proof.
The clip here shows Brady telling Edelman the play needed to be reviewed. Edelman starts telling people to get off the field, then Belichick tells him that it was reviewed. http://offthemonstersports.com/2017...down-was-confirmed-is-my-favorite-video-ever/
100%? come on man, that cost you guys 19-0 history and immortality. I can understand it being therapeutic, but that's still has to hurt a little when watching highlights. Belichick and brady prob still wish they could forget about that one. and pats are 5-4 in sb's, unless you meant just the brady era. if it wasn't for some of the dumbest playcalling in the last 2 sbs, they could easily be 3-6. But I give them credit, they made all the plays they had to make in both. But I wouldn't call the patriots the best team in nfl history yet either. they were pretty irrelevant for first 40 years, minus the 2 sb runs with a lot of losing seasons. As successful as the 2000's have been, the steelers, cowboys, packers, 49ers and even the damn giants all have a deeper richer history.
The Manning is a bad postseason player narrative is entirely false and solely based off of the fact that he had a losing record in the playoffs. When Manning played poorly in the playoffs his team and coach(though Dungy was great obviously he's not BB), we're not good enough to over come his poor play for the most part. Brady's bad playoff performances on the other hand are forgotten because his coach/team were good to overcome them for the most part.. Brady's had several bad playoff performances over the last few years that are just glossed over because the narrative has /had been already in his career that he was "clutch" earlier in his career, where as Manning's failure PO narratives are just remembered or built up more because it developed earlier in their career when he didn't win a SB early. That's what people do. When a Quarterback is great but hasn't won a SB earlier in his career, they proceed to label them a choker( see Matt Ran who was called a PO choker before this year)until they win one. Well, Brady obviously was able to avoid that because his team won super bowls early, but he wasn't necessarily great when won his first three superbowls early. Do you think Brady really wins his first three rings or starts 10-0 in the playoffs if he were asked to carry a team like Manning was at the time? Had Manning played for BB for 15 years, he'd have gone to just as many super bowls as Brady. If Rodgers played in the weak AFC of the 2010s with Belichick, he'd likely have just as many super bowls as Brady. Brady's great, but he was bad on Sunday. Three of his passes should have been intercepted on the final drives . What I saw him on Sunday pales in comparison to what Rodgers did to Dallas in the postseason. We can acknowledge his greatness without overrating his performances simply because his team won. Rodgers is flat out better than Brady ever was and probably better than Manning ever was. I do agree that it's early to put him in the conversation, given the fact that he hasn't been a starter for a decade. There are absolutely arguments to be made for Brady>Manning, but the playoffs argument is one of the worst one's to make.. Unless Brady plays at a high level until 42-43, I'll always lean towards Manning. Manning coming back from four neck surgeries cemented that for me.
Manning was an earlier bad postseason player. He got better. Manning suffers from his postseason never matching his regular season. He also suffers from not having a great SB. Brady has been great and lucky. Manning has been great and more unlucky. Manning and Brady suffered when BB and Polian focused too much on the offensive side for talent. Funny when both focused on balance that the colts won a SB and the Pats started to win more in the Playoffs. Rodgers is best inside/outside the pocket of the three. He also played in a weak NFC North. Manning also played in a weak AFC South. Rodgers is being shielded by Brady from criticism. No one is pointing out that Rodgers has not been up to par in the postseason. There is no Brady vs Manning in the NFC to say there is a roadblock.
And this is why I think the postseason argument is asinine Rodgers has had to play the Seahawks(mind you he played on a torn calf), the Harbaugh Niners, a 13-3 Cardinals team, the Cowboys twice and the Falcons plus the Giants. How has the AFC been been tougher than the NFC in this decade? Rodgers has been nearly as good in the playoffs as he has been in the regular season. Naturally, player's performances will slightly decline as they play better teams in the postseason (that includes Brady too). The Patriots get an automatic bye every year because they play in a garbage division/ after the Broncos and Ravens, the AFC has been wildly inconsistent and filled with mediocre teams at best in the postseason . Over the last four years, the NFC North has been decided on the final day of the season. The North has been much much tougher than the AFC East .What we're basically doing is looking at each guy's team's playoff record and then using that as the main determining factor to call them a great postseason player or not. And I don't agree with that. Also, when we call Manning a bad early career postseason player, we're basically basing that off of 4 games, which is also silly to me; that sample is too small and random. I personally don't even think some of Brady's first playoff wins were good performances. If that's the case then Brady over the last seven years had been a bad postseason player. The Ravens crushed him twice (he also played poorly in a third game 2012 AFC title game), the Jets killed him, he played poorly against the Texans, he sucked against the Broncos twice and was at best mediocre in this SB if we take narratives away. The problem is no one remembers his performances, because the "clutch", big game QB narrative was built up earlier in his career... it also doesn't hurt that you know his team's won in spite of him playing poorly .
All three QBs have played in a weak division. Rodgers played against how many QBs on his level? I am pointing out that he does not get the criticism of his not winning due to Brady still being around. The story would be why is Rodgers struggling in the postseason without Brady. Manning was a bad postseason player and became a very good one. Brady started off great and has been a mediocre player since then. Beating Manning and Brady is basically same formula. Get a good rush with four. Disrupt timing. Show different looks. Score points. Manning also did not have any great performances in his SB wins and one could say he won those because of his team.
Brady didn't start off as a great postseason player. His defense carried him to much of his early postseason wins. We don't need to contrive false narratives. Rodgers wasn't playing against HOF QBS on his level, but he was playing against teams that were just as good if not better than Manning's and Brady's teams, that's the point of my post. He's played better opponents than Manning/Brady have during this decade... and what I'm also saying is the idea that Rodgers has struggled in the postseason is just solely based on his record, which once again I do not believe is an intelligent way of actually evaluating QB play for the most part.
No, Rodgers has not played against as good or better. They have played with similar teams with different results. You are doing what we should not do. Rodgers has not been criticized for not winning as his talent would say he should. Manning got criticized for not winning more SBs than what his regular season and his talent would indicate. Brady was also for not winning for a decade. Now the sports media is overrating him too much. Glossing over his bad games. Rodgers has not won more given his talent. Right or wrong, they would criticizing him for struggling to win the SB.
Yes, he has. All you're doing is looking at the opposing Quarterbacks and assuming that since those guys are not HOF QBS yet, that the teams Rodgers played to were inferior in comparison to the team's Manning/Brady have faced. Once again, that's silly; if you look at every team he's faced in the playoffs, most of the time they had a dominant unit or a top 5 unit on one side of the ball The only playoff game Rodgers has lost as the betting favorite was against the Giants in 2011, you realize that right? You can continue to act as if QB SB wins are a product solely of that a QB;'s talent or play , when in reality SB wins usually come down to the teams that have the best rosters or rosters peaking at the right time, not necessarily teams that have the best Quarterbacks. That's the reason guys like Eli have 2 rings. I'm not criticizing any QB for not winning a SB on his legacy.. the NFL playoffs are a incredibly mall sample size, they are random, and yes SB wins are not an individual accolade or individual stat.
No, I am not. Rodgers is on par with them. Might be better. People criticize. Marino was for not winning one. Elway was slammed for it. Elway took some teams that should have never been there. He got the rep as a choker which was unfair. Manning was given his talent for not winning more. Brady was. Hell, he was criticized for not being able to win a SB especially on this board Spygate and Deflategate. Rodgers' moment in the sun is coming. I am not disparaging Rodgers. I believe he suffers from what Manning and Brady experienced. The front offices realized who is their best player and build the team around them. They build and tilted it too much towards them. The team becomes unbalanced. They will beat certain team and lose to the more balanced team.
What are we supposed to see? When I frame-by-frame the video... assuming normal laws of physics, it's pretty obvious it was a touchdown. The thing we see between the Falcon's legs is the back of White's upper arm. It's hard to imagine how 2 frames later when his wrist emerges with the ball touching the back of the line that it wasn't touching the front of the line when his knee hit. At the very least, even if you don't want to believe that - the call was a touchdown and you can't point to any evidence that shows the ball not in the end zone and his knee down. And to take it a bit further, if you look at the first angle which shows a more unobstructed view - you can see the ball over the line and his knees off the ground.
I just heard that Aaron Hernandez is planning on skipping out on the White House visit like his other teammates
Unlike Manning who stared straight into the abyss and let the blowout happen, Pats kept it cool and kept grinding back and scoring. Huge difference in mentality between Manning and Brady. And nobody would disagree that Rodgers is probably the most gifted QB ever. But when it comes to sitting in the pocket and manipulating the defense, he's not even close to Brady. He starts running out of the pocket and then games like Atlanta happen.
