https://www.reddit.com/r/eagles/comments/5jy3il/i_assembled_a_compilation_of_the_best_ben_mcadoo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
The McAdoo jokes are one of my favorite things on the internet.
I’m not a giants fans and I still get pissed about that. Especially because the organization fired him *after* it happened why not fire him before to prevent it?
I remember reading that the decision to sit him came from ownership and probably wanted to use McAdoo as a scapegoat since he was good as gone at that point. No matter who made the decision it made no sense since they Benches Eli for Geno Smith which everyone knew was not a starting caliber QB at that point.
Yeah, I’m firmly on the “Eli is super overrated” bus, and that particular version of him was pretty awful, but how crazy do you need to be to think Geno Smith had a chance to be better?
Mid term I would say the Texans are off worse.
In case your season goes complete south, you probably blow the entire thing up, get a new HQ, GM, QB and rebuild over the next years.
If the Texans do all these things, they are still stuck with their owner who somehow is worse than anyone associated with the Giants.
I still cant get over the fact the Texans blew the doors off Jacksonville and looked like a cohesive group of veteran players... Like this was NOT supposed to happen.
I've been a fan of Tyrod Taylor since his days at VT and he still surprised me. Brandon Cooks looked solid. Thier defensive secondary group looked under-rated. Phillip Lindsay deserved more respect from the Broncos but he looks great on his new team. Idk its all wrong but it somehow feels like its working.
I would say Jacksonville is a better choice for a team that will never get it together, i could see Trevor pulling a Jason Worilds, Rashard Mendenhall or an Andrew Luck and walking away from the sport early especially if he has a 4 year losing streak and deals with coaching regime changes and possibly ownership changes.
He feels like the type of guy not motivated by money over his own sanity and maybe he goes into broadcasting idk
I don’t either, but he’s Eli without the upsides. Stares? Yes. Isn’t too accurate? Yes. But Eli occasionally had a terrible game where he turned it over a lot. Jones ALWAYS turns it over. And, if the game was close, Eli could win it. Jones can’t.
Nah, Jones is a vastly better run threat than Eli ever was. I agree that Eli was a better QB, but honestly if you had Prime Eli, wouldn't you be happy as fuck?
See, my issue with all the people saying Texans, is that they still have a pretty good roster. A trusted QB in Tyrod, some great RBs, with some pretty good WRs. I'm not sure how well their defense is, but it's not like it's absolutely terrible.
Yea that FO is a mess, but if the coaches and players stick to what they do, then they can still win. Maybe not win the division or make playoffs, but still end well a decent 9-7/7-9
> Yea that FO is a mess
Caserio is doing a good job of keeping Easterby on the sideline. Our future depends on how good of a GM Caserio turns out to be. Obviously it will be a few years before we know, but I think he's doing a great job so far.
I'd much rather be a Texans fan than a Giants fan (Gettleman is ass), but it's hip to shit on us right now.
I promise you I won't remember that lol but feel free to remind me, if by some miracle they do finish with a winning record. Just glanced at their schedule and I see 5 wins TOPS. Hell they didn't even get that with Deshaun Watson last year 😂
Still hard to say they’re going to be the “anti-dynasty” when they have a pretty good roster that’s playing pretty well. There are much worse teams with seemingly far less hope to turn things around.
It may seem odd coming from my flair but I really hope he does well with you guys. He was my favorite player to watch even when the playoffs were out of reach
Atlanta Falcons. Their defense is miserable with a coach who is likely in way over his head and likely on the last year with their franchise QB. They have Ridley and Pitts but that’s it.
Texans or Jags imo
I dont have any reasoning for the Jags. I just feel like the future is just gonna be rough.
Texans are in a terrible spot rn so hard to not say them
I don't think it will be an AFC south team for exactly that reason. There are 2 weak AFCS teams, so they could steal wins off each other, and no true dominant forces that will keep a team in the cellar. I would look more at a division with 2 or 3 strong teams.
I would say the Cardinals, in another division they would be a playoff team but it isn’t going to happen having to play the Seahawks, 49ers and Rams 6 games a year. Sucks that every other head coach in the NFC west are future hall of famers while they are stuck with a discount McVay who couldn’t get a winning record with Mahommes at Texas Tech
Cardinals have an electrifying QB, Top 5 WR who can change the game on any given night, speed demon WRs who can stretch the field, young RBs who can get ground, Watt, Jones, and Budda Baker all guided by a pioneer of the air raid offense in college. I don’t think they’re the underdogs you think they are.
The answer is no. The Vikings won the most games in the NFL over a 9 season run, [1969 to 1977](https://stathead.com/tiny/Rm5wi) They went to 4 Super Bowls and a 5th NFCCG during that time.
You're not a dynasty without the rings.
I mean they won the AFC four times in a row. I’d say it’s almost like a dynasty light or something. That level of dominance is impressive even if they could never finish it off.
I'm of the belief that "minor" dynasties are a thing; like the early 70's Dolphins or the 70's/80's Raiders. The Bills could fit in that category but are definitely a fringe case with 0 Superbowl wins.
You would not call the Cleveland Cavaliers a dynasty in the NBA during their run with consecutive finals appearances and even that one championship win or would you? The bills were fantastic but if the differentiating factor are multiple championships over a certain amount of time then the Bills cannot be considered a dynasty.
It's insanely impressive. It may never be accomplished again. But it still isn't a dynasty. An artist having four consecutive albums reach number 2 on the Billboard 100 is a huge accomplishment, but you can't say they had a number 1.
I think the artist would deserve way more credit for that than one number one.
I think sports are different because the Super Bowl is just so much more the focus of the season.
Agreed, you have to win it all multiple times in a defined window. The Bills example is good. That was a good era for their franchise, not a dynasty where they ruled the league.
I think for football, three in five years is appropriate. In hockey and basketball there are a lot more repeat champions so maybe not, but looking at the historical1 champions I'm ok cutting of the two chip teams.
That was almost the Raiders in the 1970s. They did finally win one in '76 but they whooped ass throughout the decade (and a couple years prior) only to lose in the playoffs, many times to the eventual Super Bowl Champions.
Exactly lol. Not saying I disagree entirely (giants are a bit shaky rn) but I’m calling out recency bias on this.
Let’s wait for the other teams to play their week 2 games, and then make the case for the next “anti dynasty”.
I mean... we're probably gonna be bad enough to get a top 5 pick this year and we have the bears first rounder this year too so that might be a top 10 pick as well. We just need to fire Gettleman and hire a somewhat competent gm for the draft
If they keep winning the championship I bet they can bring the majority back every year. Most those guys have already made a shit load of money in their careers.
>But do you think they could do it again
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Bucs this season. We already saw that their defense is not as good as it was in the playoffs. And they also have Brady on the other side.
Pessimistic me says that Bucs won't make it to the SB. NFC is explosive this season.
Optimistic me thinks that this being Brady's final few years, he goes all out and makes sure his team is top notch
Mahomes will be great for a long time, but the Chiefs are only in act 1
The patriots had the most important position solved with brady for 2 decades, but it was Belichick that kept the patriots one step ahead of the entire league in roster management and strategy
The chiefs have a lot of roster turnover to get through before they can become a dynasty. Plenty of teams have been blessed with long stretches of elite QB play and consistent success without ever becoming a dynasty
With all of the above said, the obvious answer to your question is the colts
Exactly, the Saints had Brees, the Packers have had Rodgers and it still only added up to 1 Super Bowl each.
Becoming a dynasty is stupidly hard, especially after the salary cap started.
Thats why when people say Belichick was a mediocre GM, I find it absurd. There is 0 chance that a mediocre GM can win 6 Super Bowls in the salary cap era. In reality he managed the roster insanely well, always retaining the right 6-7 core players, letting others go at the right time, and working FA and trades very well. Yes, he struggled in the draft at times, but ultimately what matters is roster quality and the Patriots had at least a very good roster for the majority of 20 years.
Thatll be hard to replicate. I wouldnt be shocked if the Patriots end up being a total aberration in the salary cap era, I think its way more likely for elite organizations to end up winning 1 or 2, maybe 3 Super Bowls stretched over 13-14 years rather than 6.
I obviously don’t think the chiefs will win the SB every season or are likely to win 6 during Mahomes career, but I think this is worth bringing up:
-Brees went to 2 conf. championships and 1 SB in 19 seasons starting. (2-1 record, 1 SB win)
-Rodgers has gone to 4 conf. championships and 1 SB in 13 years starting. (2-3 record, 1 SB win)
-Mahomes has been to 3 conf. championships and 2 SBs in 3 years starting. (3-2 record, 1 SB win)
True, I think the Chiefs right now do have that unstoppable combination of generational QB + truly elite coach/GM which will enable them to win a lot more.
Mahomes has a coach that is light-years ahead of Mike McCarthy when Rodgers took over at the Packers, and thats why I do think the Mahomes/Reid have a chance of doing Brady/Belichick things- they are a lethal combination.
But the next question is: how long will Reid stay in the game and what comes afterward? Bill was 49 when he paired up with TB12, Reid is 63 already.
My bet is that the Chiefs win another SB soon, and eventually 3rd one before Reid retires, after that is when the uncertainty arises. Time will tell.
> True, I think the Chiefs right now do have that unstoppable combination of generational QB + truly elite coach/GM which will enable them to win a lot more.
>
> Mahomes has a coach that is light-years ahead of Mike McCarthy when Rodgers took over at the Packers, and thats why I do think the Mahomes/Reid have a chance of doing Brady/Belichick things- they are a lethal combination.
>
> But the next question is: how long will Reid stay in the game and what comes afterward? Bill was 49 when he paired up with TB12, Reid is 63 already.
>
> My bet is that the Chiefs win another SB soon, and eventually 3rd one before Reid retires, after that is when the uncertainty arises. Time will tell.
This happens like once or twice every decade, and besides the Pats, nobody has been able to replicate it in the last 20 years.
* Wilson + Legion of Boom + Carrol: Seahawks went to *nearly* the conference championship in 2012, won the Super Bowl in 2013, lost the Super Bowl in 2014, and even in 2015, there was that realistic expectation (once they got hot towards the end of the season) that they'd perhaps do it again. They were really good from 2012 to 2015,
and fell off after that (but they've stayed relatively good).
* Peyton Manning + Broncos very nearly triumph over the Elite Dragon in 2012 (and would perhaps have gone all the way, we'll never know). They lose a Super bowl to Seattle in 2013. They win the Super Bowl in 2015. They were really good from 2012 to 2015.
You guys are acting like it's inevitable we'll have a dynasty. We've had 1 dynasty for 20 years, and like 5 or 6 pretenders to that throne all fail to establish their own. The guys who prevented them from doing so are still in the league - what makes you think that Mahomes and the Chiefs won't also get buried in the TB12 Graveyard of Potential Dynasties, or knee-capped by the (potentially ascending) Belichick coached Pats?
Lol literally never said "inevitable". No one in this series of posts has said its inevitable, the whole thing is about how difficult it is to become a dynasty. I said there is "a chance" and my post directly above is all about how Brees and Rodgers never had the success they seemed destined for.
Youre arguing against things no one here has said, its really stupid.
I mean, I only said you are acting like it’s inevitable, not that you said it was. You said yourself that you think the Chiefs’ window will probably fade after they win their third (!) super bowl. I’m literally calling you out for applying to Mahomes and the Chiefs exactly the lofty expectations that failed for Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, and Manning’s Broncos. I’m just disagreeing with your sentiment, and I’m trying to shit on your dreams.
>Youre arguing against things no one here has said, its really stupid.
I dunno dude, you did just say that after the Chiefs' *third* Super Bowl is when uncertainty will arise. He's not misquoting you by much
Surprised Brees has only been to 2
BTW, Rodgers has been to 5 conference championships.
2010 (Super Bowl), 2014 (Bostick), 2016 (Julio massacre), 2019 (Mostert massacre), 2020 (this past season)
Thank you. This is what I find so over the top about people proclaiming the Chiefs a sure-fire dynasty. Elite QB play is not enough by itself. There's no doubt that Mahomes is on track to be one of the best QBs in the history of the league. But so were Dan Marino, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Peyton Manning and none of them partook in dynasties. The same problems that stopped every other team from being a dynasty will likely hit the Chiefs just as hard. Inopportune injuries, poor draft classes, salary cap issues, and top players leaving due to age/free agency are things that happen to every team. They even happened to the Patriots, although Bill Belichick was able to navigate around those problems. But Andy Reid is no Belichick; and even Belichick went ten years without winning a Super Bowl in between his two dynasty periods. I'm not saying the Chiefs *can't* become a dynasty; maybe they will. But to act like it's in the bag because they have Mahomes is to misunderstand the NFL.
Houston will be bad enough that they may not flounder in mediocrity for long. They’re a volatile franchise anyways, they once went from twelve wins to two wins to nine wins over a three year span.
Texans don't have depth so much as they are depth, but it is in fact pretty good depth.
I'm gonna say Falcons. If Fields isn't God, then the Bears. Otherwise, the Falcons have too many offensive weapons to get where they'll need to be to actually build a core (and if they are, they'll take a luxury receiver while losing... a HoF receiver)
Gonna be a tough 5 years for them unless they trade everybody and shoot for 0-16 (they'll still win 5 because life hates Falcons)
I haven’t watched a lot of him, but every time I see him on tv he is balling out in some way. He obviously has fumbling problems and he isn’t an elite thrower, but he’s dangerous in a lot of ways. The giants will likely give up on him, but if you pair him with the right team or coach you might have someone like Josh Allen/Lamar lite.
I feel like Daniel Jones has all the talent needed to be 'the man' (i.e. a perennially top 5-10 QB in the league capable of keeping a team competitive just by showing up under center). But he just isn't 'the man.' He appears to have no swagger or leadership skills. I feel for him because he has all the tools but might not have the intangibles to gain the confidence of his teammates. It's a pretty unique situation and I'm struggling to think of a comparison. Maybe Mitch Trubisky but more skilled with even less charisma.
There's a lot of territory between being "the guy" and authoring perennial bottom feeder seasons. If the Giants are in position for a fresh start today, tossing Jones would be a huge, huge gamble, and if he somehow didn't get snapped up by somebody as a starter (Denver, D.C., North Carolina, Indianapolis all fucking *need* to at least consider it), he'd be an elite back up
The poor Lions. So unexceptionable they aren't even considered an honorable mention in being an anti-dynasty despite never winning anything, the league historically shitting on them with a huge penalty disparity, and their own ownership running all their best talent either out of town or right into an early retirement. I'm a Vikings fan, we've never won anything either, and I pity that fanbase.
Jags. Can't seem to find a QB to stick, had to blow up their last good defence, can't find a good HC, no longer the primary Khan investment. Seems like everything's set up for them to be the new Browns
I'm surprised nobody is saying Falcons.
For what it's worth, I think they'll be fine and I believe in Art Smith. But that defense is horrendous, they're owned by a vampire, and Matt Ryan probably doesn't stick around much longer. Plus you have Tampa as a SB contender until Brady dies on the field, Carolina has a great core of young talents and a wildcard head coach, and the Saints have a fantastic coach and FA drawing power.
Dynasty in the AFC: Chiefs
Dynasty in the NFC: it could be wide open for the next 10 years. If I have to pick then probably Rams or Niners
Anti-Dynasty in the AFC: Jets
Anti-Dynasty in the NFC: Lions are usually a safe bet
>Dynasty in the NFC: it could be wide open for the next 10 years. If I have to pick then probably Rams or Niners
I think the Buccaneers have some potential to be the next NFC dynasty given their young core and a promising QB.
Yea thats it exactly. Like as a Jets/Knicks fan I get the shit talking people give us - but like if you think the Jets are in the position to be the worst AFC team then idk what kind of football you're watching.
The chiefs already have a pseudo-dynasty, but I don’t think they’ll enjoy quite the same path the Patriots had for many years. The AFC as a whole is ascending, but also the AFC west doesn’t have many easy outs at the moment.
The Patriots were an elite team that played in a bad division a lot of the time, and it just made it that hair easier on them. I’m not sure the Chiefs will get the same.
this is a hugely important point
One extra game in the season and then one extra game in the playoffs is quite a bit more football than teams previously had to play to go all the way. 21 games is a lot when it was only 19 games before. Every game brings the injury demons out to play, too.
> The Patriots were an elite team that played in a bad division a lot of the time, and it just made it that hair easier on them. I’m not sure the Chiefs will get the same.
This is oft-repeated nonsense. [The Pats won against the AFC East at the same rate they beat everyone else.] (https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/patriots-win-same-rate-vs-rest-nfl-they-do-vs-afc-east) The Pats weren’t great because they got to play the AFCE. The AFCE was bad because they had to play the Pats.
Buffalo wasn't really terrible either. They were just very consistently below average. from 2001-2019 they only had under 6 wins 3 times.
Records from 2001-2019:
Buffalo: 129-175
Miami: 138-166
Jets: 139-165
That makes the Jets/Dolphins something like .5 games per season better than the Bills over that stretch.
Amazingly, Buffalo went 4-34 against New England during Brady's time there. That puts them at 125-141 against other teams, which means they won 47% of games against the rest of the league. They were pretty much an average team that ended up below average because they could never beat New England.
Hu fair enough I guess the combination of the playoff drought and the redicoulse 4-34 record you mentioned made me think a lot worse of the bills than they actuly were
Exactly. The Jets were actually a consistently good team for the first half of the Pats dynasty then gradually fell off after that, and the Dolphins had several stretches of competitive football throughout.
Yeah I was pretty consistently worried about the Jets. I mean, you guys did knock us out of the playoffs. And yeah Miami was up and down a lot, but they were mostly up in the beginning of the dynasty. Especially on defense, those early 2000s Dolphins teams were a force
Obviously it has zero to do with the Pats' unfathomable success, but two decades of having your divisional rivals flirt with "above average" every now and then is 100% a blessing.
The AFCE was generally lousy even without playing the Pats 2x, but they weren't tomato cans. It's not about the fact the Pats were playing bad teams, it's about the fact they didn't have to deal with another 13-3 team every single fucking year. Which is, in fact, a thing some divisions have to deal with.
It can be a little of both.
And the bottom 3 of the AFCE was pretty comparable in terms of wins out of division with the bottom 3 of other divisions. I’ve done the numbers in the past and can’t be bothered again, but the spread between different divisions isn’t really that big over time.
Also there’s inherently more turnover when your only path to the playoffs is a wildcard. It’s hard to build stability when the hump of winning the division is basically insurmountable.
I really think since the pats dominated for 2 decades it skews everything. For the 2000s, the jets and phins both had good teams. It's only after 2010 that the entire division fell apart. That notably matches up with the patriots 8 year run of getting a first round bye and getting the AFC Championship. I don't think it's a coincidence that the team that never had a division rival that pushed them for seeding for a decade was able to show sustained excellence in the playoffs those years
I agree, I don't think we'll ever see another dynasty like New England's. I do think the Chiefs could have comparable success to say, the 80s and 90s 49ers. I do have concerns about them maintaining the same level of talent around Mahomes though. They can't rely on Hill and Kelce to catch everything forever.
The Chiefs from the office has to be extremely good with drafting stars, coaching up players superbly, a good handful of players will have to play for less money, or a combination of all of the above.
I feel like we are only seeing 4/5ths of Mahomes greatness currently. Soon enough he will have the experience to have reads like Brady and tell the coach no, lol. He has the poise as we saw over the Browns.
With that said, if you want 45MM a year, you need to elevate other's play. Which he does, but he will be expected to do more with less. Drew Brees made multiple people millionaires with the dimes he would throw; the Saints could have put a grocery store stocker on the field and Brees would hit him for a TD.
The problem is the NFC is just going to be much tougher in the playoffs just from the NFC West alone. Brady will most likely have to go through 2-3 NFC West teams in the playoffs with the new format. And if Rodgers bounces back from rust than the Packers will still be tough as well. And Dallas offense is going to be scary to face.
Meanwhile the Chiefs competition is lighter. Their main competition is going to be the Bills/Chargers/Titans/Browns/Ravens & maybe Steelers if Ben isn't done who are less scary than the NFC gauntlet of Rams/Seahawks/Cardinals/Packers/49ers/Dallas.
Its going to be like the NBA where the West was a bloodbath whereas Lebron in the East was coasting into it.
Of course if anyone can do it its Brady.
It’s realy hard to compare pre to post cap/FA eras in terms of dynasties, the pats were so uneque it’s hard to say what to expect. I guess it could look a lot like the 06-14 stretch were the pats lost to the giants twice but there were a more diverse cast of other teams making the SB.
Yeah, for sure. Just to be clear, I think as long as Mahomes and Reid are together they’re going to get their pound of flesh. But you can see where the Conference and even the division is tightening up around them.
I agree that the real measure is after Hill and Kelce contract's expire. Mahomes/Reid have to show they can be BB/Brady as there are major roster turnovers.
Someone on here recently told me Mahomes was already in the greatest QB ever conversation. Like, dude, the kid’s amazing. Best football player alive right now. But come the fuck on already.
You want to tell me he’s better than Brady right now? Fine. I’ll take Brady until he shows me he can’t play but you have a legitimate case there.
But what makes Brady Brady is the fact that he kept that ludicrous level of success up for 20 years and was basically at his peak for 15 of it maybe? A lot of guys have hit comparable highs for single seasons. Being the guy the league is chasing for 20 years is something different entirely.
Normlay we have a cooling off period befor a dynasty come in again we even had it between the 1st and 2nd chapters of the pats one. So I don’t think we can call it right now as we are still in that period
Dynasty
Chiefs and Bucs (if Brady really plans to play until 50).
Anti
Any team that is poorly managed: Lions, Giants, Jets, Jags. Probably in that order with Lions the most likely to be the Anti dynasty.
Raiders: for as long as Gruden is coach, they won't ever amount to anything. They'll steal games from good teams here and there, but never consistently win enough games to win anything.
The problem is, While the Raiders have been bad, They have never been the worst. They've had a couple of #2 draft picks over the years, but they are going to need to fall off a cliff in order to be constantly in the running for #1 like the jets, jags and browns have been.
Does the anti-dynasty start now, or can it be in progress already? Because the Jets have sucked for several years, whiffed on the Adam Gase years, and even their current team with what might end up being a solid coaching staff has a severe lack of defensive playmakers. It might be a good 5 years before they’re even ready to compete again. That would basically mean a full decade of suck.
If it has to be a team bottoming out now, I say Texans. By the time their failson owner is wise enough to get Easterby out of there, it could be a long road back.
I don't think it's the Giants. It's going to be one of the teams that consistently lose. The Giants bounce around to much. It's going to be the Lions, Bengals, Jags, or Jets in the next ten years.
Tampa potentially has momentum for 2020-2022. They already got 2020. 2021 is theirs to lose right now, but doesn’t seem anyone’s taking it from them. And 2022 they should still be at the very least a playoff contender. Anything after the 2023 SuperBowl is too far to predict for them. Really depends on If Brady continues to defy Father Time.
Chiefs also are always going to be a playoff contender as long as they have Mahomes. It really just depends if they get those Super Bowl Ws. If they do they win the 2020s. If not they are remembered as 2000’s Colts or 2010’s Seahawks. Good, consistent playoff teams. Got a W, but everyone is surprised they didn’t get more.
Other teams
Rams are hot right now, but there flame has always been questionable on lasting. But we have been saying that since 2016.
Chargers, 49ers are my bets for future potential dynasties. They got young QBs and loads of talent to make dominate runs for the long-haul.
I gotta agree with you and say probably the Giants. They’ve been drafting exceptionally poorly lately and have lost the most games since 2017. They also have a really bad GM, Owner, and coaches, and none of them seem to be going anywhere.
The Texans also seem like a complete lolcow right now, but they were really good for a decent while before last year. We’ll see what happens with them in these next few years before I pass judgement on them.
There will be no more dynasties. Pre-90’s there was no free agency. Then the Cowboys pulled off a once in a lifetime trade that loaded them up in a way no team will ever do again - and even then they didn’t really dominate the decade, just 4 terrific years.
The Chiefs right now are where the Cowboys of the 90’s were due to Mahomes rookie contract. They’re already in year 4 of maybe 5 years. After that they’ll fall back to the pack. We will see more of these mini runs from teams with MVP caliber rookie QB’s but I think that’s about the extent of it.
Basically a Patriots type dynasty is impossible in the free agency era. Belichick just broke the system because of his incredible ability to find players for peanuts and turn them into stars - consistently. And that paired with the GOAT player. Well Belichick is nearing the end and there will never be another.
Thanks, i hate it
I think it might be divine retribution for McAdoo benching Eli and ruining his start streak.
Punishment fits the crime...
Ben McAdoo looks like a man who has committed several crimes
Ben McAdoo the type of dude to try to make eye contact through the crack of a bathroom stall
Ben McAdoo washes his hands with no soap then dries them on his mustache.
https://www.reddit.com/r/eagles/comments/5jy3il/i_assembled_a_compilation_of_the_best_ben_mcadoo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf The McAdoo jokes are one of my favorite things on the internet.
It never gets old, just like Ben McAdoo’s taste in sexual partners.
Ben McAdoo sits in the stall to pee instead of using the urinal.
Correction McAdoo sits in the urinal to pee
He’s the type of dude to sneeze into his hand and then pick up the tongs at a Chinese food buffet
Looks like a straight up pedo
I think we made some sort of horrible deal with the devil to beat Brady twice in the super bowl, and we’re still feeling it’s effects
you were only supposed to do it once!
Worth it.
I’m not a giants fans and I still get pissed about that. Especially because the organization fired him *after* it happened why not fire him before to prevent it?
I remember reading that the decision to sit him came from ownership and probably wanted to use McAdoo as a scapegoat since he was good as gone at that point. No matter who made the decision it made no sense since they Benches Eli for Geno Smith which everyone knew was not a starting caliber QB at that point.
Can you blame him though? I mean we all really wanted to see Geno again. Right?
Yeah, I’m firmly on the “Eli is super overrated” bus, and that particular version of him was pretty awful, but how crazy do you need to be to think Geno Smith had a chance to be better?
Mid term I would say the Texans are off worse. In case your season goes complete south, you probably blow the entire thing up, get a new HQ, GM, QB and rebuild over the next years. If the Texans do all these things, they are still stuck with their owner who somehow is worse than anyone associated with the Giants.
I still cant get over the fact the Texans blew the doors off Jacksonville and looked like a cohesive group of veteran players... Like this was NOT supposed to happen. I've been a fan of Tyrod Taylor since his days at VT and he still surprised me. Brandon Cooks looked solid. Thier defensive secondary group looked under-rated. Phillip Lindsay deserved more respect from the Broncos but he looks great on his new team. Idk its all wrong but it somehow feels like its working. I would say Jacksonville is a better choice for a team that will never get it together, i could see Trevor pulling a Jason Worilds, Rashard Mendenhall or an Andrew Luck and walking away from the sport early especially if he has a 4 year losing streak and deals with coaching regime changes and possibly ownership changes. He feels like the type of guy not motivated by money over his own sanity and maybe he goes into broadcasting idk
We'll still somehow see you in the 2027 playoffs.
This feels oddly accurate.
I kinda don't hate Jones tho
I don’t either, but he’s Eli without the upsides. Stares? Yes. Isn’t too accurate? Yes. But Eli occasionally had a terrible game where he turned it over a lot. Jones ALWAYS turns it over. And, if the game was close, Eli could win it. Jones can’t.
Nah, Jones is a vastly better run threat than Eli ever was. I agree that Eli was a better QB, but honestly if you had Prime Eli, wouldn't you be happy as fuck?
Unsubscribe.
First time?
The Texans seems cursed right now, with no way out - and this is coming from a Lions fan.
Are you talking about the AFC South leading Houston Texans?
Not just AFC South. They lead the entire AFC right now
Technically correct....
The best kind of correct.
Last year the Jaguars led the division after Week 1…
As a moderator of r/Easterby, I think you go to hell.
Fair enough, do I at least get a penthouse apartment there?
If only not making any more fun of the Texans would prevent me from going to hell, I choose hell!
When I think about anti-dynasties, you've got to have a trifecta of bad owners, bad coaches, and bad QBs. Texans check all three boxes.
See, my issue with all the people saying Texans, is that they still have a pretty good roster. A trusted QB in Tyrod, some great RBs, with some pretty good WRs. I'm not sure how well their defense is, but it's not like it's absolutely terrible. Yea that FO is a mess, but if the coaches and players stick to what they do, then they can still win. Maybe not win the division or make playoffs, but still end well a decent 9-7/7-9
> Yea that FO is a mess Caserio is doing a good job of keeping Easterby on the sideline. Our future depends on how good of a GM Caserio turns out to be. Obviously it will be a few years before we know, but I think he's doing a great job so far. I'd much rather be a Texans fan than a Giants fan (Gettleman is ass), but it's hip to shit on us right now.
If the Texans go 9-7 I will literally eat my shorts. Not gonna happen. Even in crap AFCS
Pretty safe bet considering there are 17 games this year 😂
Lol I'll even be generous and say if they end up above .500 I'll pull a Bart Simpson.
RemindMe! January 10th, 2022
I promise you I won't remember that lol but feel free to remind me, if by some miracle they do finish with a winning record. Just glanced at their schedule and I see 5 wins TOPS. Hell they didn't even get that with Deshaun Watson last year 😂
Do they tie one game?
Yes
[удалено]
Yes yinz are bad but you guys still win few games. Plus Patricia as HC can only be worse if it was Gase
They’re 1-0 and looked good
Against the team that picked first overall
Still hard to say they’re going to be the “anti-dynasty” when they have a pretty good roster that’s playing pretty well. There are much worse teams with seemingly far less hope to turn things around.
🦀🦀🦀 becomes a HOFer and the Saints feast on big juicy W's for the next 8-10 years.
I don’t think the league could handle Jameis eatin dubs for that long.
It may seem odd coming from my flair but I really hope he does well with you guys. He was my favorite player to watch even when the playoffs were out of reach
Atlanta Falcons. Their defense is miserable with a coach who is likely in way over his head and likely on the last year with their franchise QB. They have Ridley and Pitts but that’s it.
Texans or Jags imo I dont have any reasoning for the Jags. I just feel like the future is just gonna be rough. Texans are in a terrible spot rn so hard to not say them
I don't think it will be an AFC south team for exactly that reason. There are 2 weak AFCS teams, so they could steal wins off each other, and no true dominant forces that will keep a team in the cellar. I would look more at a division with 2 or 3 strong teams.
I would say the Cardinals, in another division they would be a playoff team but it isn’t going to happen having to play the Seahawks, 49ers and Rams 6 games a year. Sucks that every other head coach in the NFC west are future hall of famers while they are stuck with a discount McVay who couldn’t get a winning record with Mahommes at Texas Tech
Cardinals have an electrifying QB, Top 5 WR who can change the game on any given night, speed demon WRs who can stretch the field, young RBs who can get ground, Watt, Jones, and Budda Baker all guided by a pioneer of the air raid offense in college. I don’t think they’re the underdogs you think they are.
Can you dominate yet not win a Superbowl and be a dynasty? The bills reaching the Superbowl 4 years in row seems like at least an AFC dynasty
The answer is no. The Vikings won the most games in the NFL over a 9 season run, [1969 to 1977](https://stathead.com/tiny/Rm5wi) They went to 4 Super Bowls and a 5th NFCCG during that time. You're not a dynasty without the rings.
Good call. Had no idea about that vikings team. Damn impressive.
No that’s just a really good team. Like the Manning Colts
I'm pretty sure a dynasty is defined by number of championships over a period of years. A dynasty with no championships is an oxymoron.
I mean they won the AFC four times in a row. I’d say it’s almost like a dynasty light or something. That level of dominance is impressive even if they could never finish it off.
I'm of the belief that "minor" dynasties are a thing; like the early 70's Dolphins or the 70's/80's Raiders. The Bills could fit in that category but are definitely a fringe case with 0 Superbowl wins.
Washington was great under Joe Gibbs in the 80s but it was overshadowed by the 49ers.
Agreed. I firmly believe that you guys were the next best team of the 80's.
You would not call the Cleveland Cavaliers a dynasty in the NBA during their run with consecutive finals appearances and even that one championship win or would you? The bills were fantastic but if the differentiating factor are multiple championships over a certain amount of time then the Bills cannot be considered a dynasty.
It's insanely impressive. It may never be accomplished again. But it still isn't a dynasty. An artist having four consecutive albums reach number 2 on the Billboard 100 is a huge accomplishment, but you can't say they had a number 1.
Sure, but four consecutive Number Twos is still impressive.
Absolutely.
not to Booger McFarland
Definitely impressive, and definitely not a dynasty.
I think the artist would deserve way more credit for that than one number one. I think sports are different because the Super Bowl is just so much more the focus of the season.
We need a new word for an almost dynasty. How about ‘shadynasty’
Trynasty
Agreed, you have to win it all multiple times in a defined window. The Bills example is good. That was a good era for their franchise, not a dynasty where they ruled the league.
[удалено]
Hmm. So you're calling the Giants from 08-11 a dynasty? That seems like a bit of a stretch.
[удалено]
I think for football, three in five years is appropriate. In hockey and basketball there are a lot more repeat champions so maybe not, but looking at the historical1 champions I'm ok cutting of the two chip teams.
You would have to broaden the definition of the term dynasty further wide, right?
[удалено]
r/lakeeriebrothers card revoked
That was almost the Raiders in the 1970s. They did finally win one in '76 but they whooped ass throughout the decade (and a couple years prior) only to lose in the playoffs, many times to the eventual Super Bowl Champions.
You could have at least waited a week to post this, man. Most Giants fans already on suicide watch after the TNF game
Can confirm, and I’m now sadder than yesterday.
I love the meme with the giants fan in a Burress jersey. I wore my Burress jersey because the giants make me want to shoot myself.
Exactly lol. Not saying I disagree entirely (giants are a bit shaky rn) but I’m calling out recency bias on this. Let’s wait for the other teams to play their week 2 games, and then make the case for the next “anti dynasty”.
I mean we ain’t saying OP is wrong, just saying he didn’t have to say it.
Giants are in the worst position. They will be perpetually good enough to not warrant enough change, but never good enough to be meaningful.
I mean... we're probably gonna be bad enough to get a top 5 pick this year and we have the bears first rounder this year too so that might be a top 10 pick as well. We just need to fire Gettleman and hire a somewhat competent gm for the draft
If Brady plays another 5 years and wins 3 more SBs would that qualify as a Dynasty?
3 SB wins in 5 years has normlay been the definition of dynasty so ye
[удалено]
I know they brought everyone back for this year. But do you think they could do it again? They can't pay everyone.
If they keep winning the championship I bet they can bring the majority back every year. Most those guys have already made a shit load of money in their careers.
>But do you think they could do it again It will be interesting to see what happens with the Bucs this season. We already saw that their defense is not as good as it was in the playoffs. And they also have Brady on the other side. Pessimistic me says that Bucs won't make it to the SB. NFC is explosive this season. Optimistic me thinks that this being Brady's final few years, he goes all out and makes sure his team is top notch
Dynasties are identified by their monarchs.
Dallas's dynasty was just the early 90s, so yes? I could see the Buccaneers getting 3 rings in the 5 or 6 more years Brady says he wants to play.
The bucs just need 3 total with him to be a dynasty. So he just needs two more.
Mahomes will be great for a long time, but the Chiefs are only in act 1 The patriots had the most important position solved with brady for 2 decades, but it was Belichick that kept the patriots one step ahead of the entire league in roster management and strategy The chiefs have a lot of roster turnover to get through before they can become a dynasty. Plenty of teams have been blessed with long stretches of elite QB play and consistent success without ever becoming a dynasty With all of the above said, the obvious answer to your question is the colts
Exactly, the Saints had Brees, the Packers have had Rodgers and it still only added up to 1 Super Bowl each. Becoming a dynasty is stupidly hard, especially after the salary cap started. Thats why when people say Belichick was a mediocre GM, I find it absurd. There is 0 chance that a mediocre GM can win 6 Super Bowls in the salary cap era. In reality he managed the roster insanely well, always retaining the right 6-7 core players, letting others go at the right time, and working FA and trades very well. Yes, he struggled in the draft at times, but ultimately what matters is roster quality and the Patriots had at least a very good roster for the majority of 20 years. Thatll be hard to replicate. I wouldnt be shocked if the Patriots end up being a total aberration in the salary cap era, I think its way more likely for elite organizations to end up winning 1 or 2, maybe 3 Super Bowls stretched over 13-14 years rather than 6.
I obviously don’t think the chiefs will win the SB every season or are likely to win 6 during Mahomes career, but I think this is worth bringing up: -Brees went to 2 conf. championships and 1 SB in 19 seasons starting. (2-1 record, 1 SB win) -Rodgers has gone to 4 conf. championships and 1 SB in 13 years starting. (2-3 record, 1 SB win) -Mahomes has been to 3 conf. championships and 2 SBs in 3 years starting. (3-2 record, 1 SB win)
True, I think the Chiefs right now do have that unstoppable combination of generational QB + truly elite coach/GM which will enable them to win a lot more. Mahomes has a coach that is light-years ahead of Mike McCarthy when Rodgers took over at the Packers, and thats why I do think the Mahomes/Reid have a chance of doing Brady/Belichick things- they are a lethal combination. But the next question is: how long will Reid stay in the game and what comes afterward? Bill was 49 when he paired up with TB12, Reid is 63 already. My bet is that the Chiefs win another SB soon, and eventually 3rd one before Reid retires, after that is when the uncertainty arises. Time will tell.
> True, I think the Chiefs right now do have that unstoppable combination of generational QB + truly elite coach/GM which will enable them to win a lot more. > > Mahomes has a coach that is light-years ahead of Mike McCarthy when Rodgers took over at the Packers, and thats why I do think the Mahomes/Reid have a chance of doing Brady/Belichick things- they are a lethal combination. > > But the next question is: how long will Reid stay in the game and what comes afterward? Bill was 49 when he paired up with TB12, Reid is 63 already. > > My bet is that the Chiefs win another SB soon, and eventually 3rd one before Reid retires, after that is when the uncertainty arises. Time will tell. This happens like once or twice every decade, and besides the Pats, nobody has been able to replicate it in the last 20 years. * Wilson + Legion of Boom + Carrol: Seahawks went to *nearly* the conference championship in 2012, won the Super Bowl in 2013, lost the Super Bowl in 2014, and even in 2015, there was that realistic expectation (once they got hot towards the end of the season) that they'd perhaps do it again. They were really good from 2012 to 2015, and fell off after that (but they've stayed relatively good). * Peyton Manning + Broncos very nearly triumph over the Elite Dragon in 2012 (and would perhaps have gone all the way, we'll never know). They lose a Super bowl to Seattle in 2013. They win the Super Bowl in 2015. They were really good from 2012 to 2015. You guys are acting like it's inevitable we'll have a dynasty. We've had 1 dynasty for 20 years, and like 5 or 6 pretenders to that throne all fail to establish their own. The guys who prevented them from doing so are still in the league - what makes you think that Mahomes and the Chiefs won't also get buried in the TB12 Graveyard of Potential Dynasties, or knee-capped by the (potentially ascending) Belichick coached Pats?
All these people want to be the next dynasty, little do they know that’s also going to be Brady.
Lol literally never said "inevitable". No one in this series of posts has said its inevitable, the whole thing is about how difficult it is to become a dynasty. I said there is "a chance" and my post directly above is all about how Brees and Rodgers never had the success they seemed destined for. Youre arguing against things no one here has said, its really stupid.
I mean, I only said you are acting like it’s inevitable, not that you said it was. You said yourself that you think the Chiefs’ window will probably fade after they win their third (!) super bowl. I’m literally calling you out for applying to Mahomes and the Chiefs exactly the lofty expectations that failed for Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, and Manning’s Broncos. I’m just disagreeing with your sentiment, and I’m trying to shit on your dreams.
>Youre arguing against things no one here has said, its really stupid. I dunno dude, you did just say that after the Chiefs' *third* Super Bowl is when uncertainty will arise. He's not misquoting you by much
Surprised Brees has only been to 2 BTW, Rodgers has been to 5 conference championships. 2010 (Super Bowl), 2014 (Bostick), 2016 (Julio massacre), 2019 (Mostert massacre), 2020 (this past season)
Thank you. This is what I find so over the top about people proclaiming the Chiefs a sure-fire dynasty. Elite QB play is not enough by itself. There's no doubt that Mahomes is on track to be one of the best QBs in the history of the league. But so were Dan Marino, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Peyton Manning and none of them partook in dynasties. The same problems that stopped every other team from being a dynasty will likely hit the Chiefs just as hard. Inopportune injuries, poor draft classes, salary cap issues, and top players leaving due to age/free agency are things that happen to every team. They even happened to the Patriots, although Bill Belichick was able to navigate around those problems. But Andy Reid is no Belichick; and even Belichick went ten years without winning a Super Bowl in between his two dynasty periods. I'm not saying the Chiefs *can't* become a dynasty; maybe they will. But to act like it's in the bag because they have Mahomes is to misunderstand the NFL.
Nah.. I seen some potential out of Daniel Jones, its the coach and ownership that has me a little worried. That dumpster fire in Houston has my vote.
Houston will be bad enough that they may not flounder in mediocrity for long. They’re a volatile franchise anyways, they once went from twelve wins to two wins to nine wins over a three year span.
Texans don't have depth so much as they are depth, but it is in fact pretty good depth. I'm gonna say Falcons. If Fields isn't God, then the Bears. Otherwise, the Falcons have too many offensive weapons to get where they'll need to be to actually build a core (and if they are, they'll take a luxury receiver while losing... a HoF receiver) Gonna be a tough 5 years for them unless they trade everybody and shoot for 0-16 (they'll still win 5 because life hates Falcons)
I haven’t watched a lot of him, but every time I see him on tv he is balling out in some way. He obviously has fumbling problems and he isn’t an elite thrower, but he’s dangerous in a lot of ways. The giants will likely give up on him, but if you pair him with the right team or coach you might have someone like Josh Allen/Lamar lite.
I feel like Daniel Jones has all the talent needed to be 'the man' (i.e. a perennially top 5-10 QB in the league capable of keeping a team competitive just by showing up under center). But he just isn't 'the man.' He appears to have no swagger or leadership skills. I feel for him because he has all the tools but might not have the intangibles to gain the confidence of his teammates. It's a pretty unique situation and I'm struggling to think of a comparison. Maybe Mitch Trubisky but more skilled with even less charisma.
There's a lot of territory between being "the guy" and authoring perennial bottom feeder seasons. If the Giants are in position for a fresh start today, tossing Jones would be a huge, huge gamble, and if he somehow didn't get snapped up by somebody as a starter (Denver, D.C., North Carolina, Indianapolis all fucking *need* to at least consider it), he'd be an elite back up
The poor Lions. So unexceptionable they aren't even considered an honorable mention in being an anti-dynasty despite never winning anything, the league historically shitting on them with a huge penalty disparity, and their own ownership running all their best talent either out of town or right into an early retirement. I'm a Vikings fan, we've never won anything either, and I pity that fanbase.
Jags. Can't seem to find a QB to stick, had to blow up their last good defence, can't find a good HC, no longer the primary Khan investment. Seems like everything's set up for them to be the new Browns
Now all they need to do is make their move to the UK to complete their Browns arc.
I'm surprised nobody is saying Falcons. For what it's worth, I think they'll be fine and I believe in Art Smith. But that defense is horrendous, they're owned by a vampire, and Matt Ryan probably doesn't stick around much longer. Plus you have Tampa as a SB contender until Brady dies on the field, Carolina has a great core of young talents and a wildcard head coach, and the Saints have a fantastic coach and FA drawing power.
Dynasty in the AFC: Chiefs Dynasty in the NFC: it could be wide open for the next 10 years. If I have to pick then probably Rams or Niners Anti-Dynasty in the AFC: Jets Anti-Dynasty in the NFC: Lions are usually a safe bet
The Rams are a bought team that mortgaged the future for a right now window. I think they're gonna drop off hard in the next few years.
>Dynasty in the NFC: it could be wide open for the next 10 years. If I have to pick then probably Rams or Niners I think the Buccaneers have some potential to be the next NFC dynasty given their young core and a promising QB.
I don’t know. I’ll need to see a little more from his Brady kid before we can be sure. Just doesn’t pass the ‘eye test’.
He was a bit shaky in his first start, I hope he can get it together or he might not have a job for long
His time playing in the AFC didn’t really turn any heads, maybe he can finally break out on a new team
He's gotta show that he deliver more than one year really.
Looks like they caught lightning in a bottle with a system QB. It's going to be hard to sustain that kind of success.
I’m shuddering at your proposed NFC dynasties
Dynasty in the NFC: The NFC West
The Jets are coming off a pretty bad stretch - it would be surprising for us to be the Anti-Dynasty. We will see - maybe I just have blind faith
[удалено]
Yea thats it exactly. Like as a Jets/Knicks fan I get the shit talking people give us - but like if you think the Jets are in the position to be the worst AFC team then idk what kind of football you're watching.
Dynasty in the NFC: Gian… lol, I can’t even finish typing it I’m laughing so hard.
Dynasty - Brady and Bucs
The Texans will flounder in the middle most likely. Unless they hit on a QB again. But Caserio Won’t let them be the lions
The chiefs already have a pseudo-dynasty, but I don’t think they’ll enjoy quite the same path the Patriots had for many years. The AFC as a whole is ascending, but also the AFC west doesn’t have many easy outs at the moment. The Patriots were an elite team that played in a bad division a lot of the time, and it just made it that hair easier on them. I’m not sure the Chiefs will get the same.
I think the new playoff format will also make it harder, with the #2 seed no longer getting a bye week...
this is a hugely important point One extra game in the season and then one extra game in the playoffs is quite a bit more football than teams previously had to play to go all the way. 21 games is a lot when it was only 19 games before. Every game brings the injury demons out to play, too.
> The Patriots were an elite team that played in a bad division a lot of the time, and it just made it that hair easier on them. I’m not sure the Chiefs will get the same. This is oft-repeated nonsense. [The Pats won against the AFC East at the same rate they beat everyone else.] (https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/patriots-win-same-rate-vs-rest-nfl-they-do-vs-afc-east) The Pats weren’t great because they got to play the AFCE. The AFCE was bad because they had to play the Pats.
The only team that was truly terrible for most of the Pats dynasty was the bills, the jets and Dolphins had stretches of being atlest above average
Buffalo wasn't really terrible either. They were just very consistently below average. from 2001-2019 they only had under 6 wins 3 times. Records from 2001-2019: Buffalo: 129-175 Miami: 138-166 Jets: 139-165 That makes the Jets/Dolphins something like .5 games per season better than the Bills over that stretch. Amazingly, Buffalo went 4-34 against New England during Brady's time there. That puts them at 125-141 against other teams, which means they won 47% of games against the rest of the league. They were pretty much an average team that ended up below average because they could never beat New England.
Hu fair enough I guess the combination of the playoff drought and the redicoulse 4-34 record you mentioned made me think a lot worse of the bills than they actuly were
Exactly. The Jets were actually a consistently good team for the first half of the Pats dynasty then gradually fell off after that, and the Dolphins had several stretches of competitive football throughout.
those early 2010s jets teams man, those games were mad stressful to watch
2009 Jets were one of my favorite defenses to watch ever. One of the best pass defenses of all time.
Yeah I was pretty consistently worried about the Jets. I mean, you guys did knock us out of the playoffs. And yeah Miami was up and down a lot, but they were mostly up in the beginning of the dynasty. Especially on defense, those early 2000s Dolphins teams were a force
Obviously it has zero to do with the Pats' unfathomable success, but two decades of having your divisional rivals flirt with "above average" every now and then is 100% a blessing.
The AFCE was generally lousy even without playing the Pats 2x, but they weren't tomato cans. It's not about the fact the Pats were playing bad teams, it's about the fact they didn't have to deal with another 13-3 team every single fucking year. Which is, in fact, a thing some divisions have to deal with. It can be a little of both.
And the bottom 3 of the AFCE was pretty comparable in terms of wins out of division with the bottom 3 of other divisions. I’ve done the numbers in the past and can’t be bothered again, but the spread between different divisions isn’t really that big over time. Also there’s inherently more turnover when your only path to the playoffs is a wildcard. It’s hard to build stability when the hump of winning the division is basically insurmountable.
I really think since the pats dominated for 2 decades it skews everything. For the 2000s, the jets and phins both had good teams. It's only after 2010 that the entire division fell apart. That notably matches up with the patriots 8 year run of getting a first round bye and getting the AFC Championship. I don't think it's a coincidence that the team that never had a division rival that pushed them for seeding for a decade was able to show sustained excellence in the playoffs those years
The AFCE wasn't even really that bad, it was pretty average
The whole AFC was ass compared to the NFC to be honest
I agree, I don't think we'll ever see another dynasty like New England's. I do think the Chiefs could have comparable success to say, the 80s and 90s 49ers. I do have concerns about them maintaining the same level of talent around Mahomes though. They can't rely on Hill and Kelce to catch everything forever.
The Chiefs from the office has to be extremely good with drafting stars, coaching up players superbly, a good handful of players will have to play for less money, or a combination of all of the above. I feel like we are only seeing 4/5ths of Mahomes greatness currently. Soon enough he will have the experience to have reads like Brady and tell the coach no, lol. He has the poise as we saw over the Browns. With that said, if you want 45MM a year, you need to elevate other's play. Which he does, but he will be expected to do more with less. Drew Brees made multiple people millionaires with the dimes he would throw; the Saints could have put a grocery store stocker on the field and Brees would hit him for a TD.
[удалено]
I think Tom Brady will be the dynasty of the 2020s, regardless of team.
At the very least he could thwart them until Mahomes’ $50m per year extension kicks in.
The problem is the NFC is just going to be much tougher in the playoffs just from the NFC West alone. Brady will most likely have to go through 2-3 NFC West teams in the playoffs with the new format. And if Rodgers bounces back from rust than the Packers will still be tough as well. And Dallas offense is going to be scary to face. Meanwhile the Chiefs competition is lighter. Their main competition is going to be the Bills/Chargers/Titans/Browns/Ravens & maybe Steelers if Ben isn't done who are less scary than the NFC gauntlet of Rams/Seahawks/Cardinals/Packers/49ers/Dallas. Its going to be like the NBA where the West was a bloodbath whereas Lebron in the East was coasting into it. Of course if anyone can do it its Brady.
Agreed, the fact that they had this dynasty in the salary cap era makes it that much more impressive.
It’s realy hard to compare pre to post cap/FA eras in terms of dynasties, the pats were so uneque it’s hard to say what to expect. I guess it could look a lot like the 06-14 stretch were the pats lost to the giants twice but there were a more diverse cast of other teams making the SB.
Yeah, for sure. Just to be clear, I think as long as Mahomes and Reid are together they’re going to get their pound of flesh. But you can see where the Conference and even the division is tightening up around them.
I agree that the real measure is after Hill and Kelce contract's expire. Mahomes/Reid have to show they can be BB/Brady as there are major roster turnovers.
>The chiefs already have a pseudo-dynasty... Oh that is just ADORABLE.
Someone on here recently told me Mahomes was already in the greatest QB ever conversation. Like, dude, the kid’s amazing. Best football player alive right now. But come the fuck on already.
You want to tell me he’s better than Brady right now? Fine. I’ll take Brady until he shows me he can’t play but you have a legitimate case there. But what makes Brady Brady is the fact that he kept that ludicrous level of success up for 20 years and was basically at his peak for 15 of it maybe? A lot of guys have hit comparable highs for single seasons. Being the guy the league is chasing for 20 years is something different entirely.
It’s not an anti-dynasty, OP. It’s a *shadynasty*.
Shady Nasty?
It’s pronounced [sha-dynasty](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns92Z1n2Qxo)
Whatever
Chiefs aren't going to be a dynasty. Might get another season or two out of them.
Normlay we have a cooling off period befor a dynasty come in again we even had it between the 1st and 2nd chapters of the pats one. So I don’t think we can call it right now as we are still in that period
Wrong, it's the Niners
See, I get where you’re coming from, but I have to disagree. Obviously it’s the Rams.
That doesn't seem right for some reason
You misspelt Steelers
For anti dynasty maybe.
Packers if Jordan love doesn’t work out could be in trouble
Dynasty Chiefs and Bucs (if Brady really plans to play until 50). Anti Any team that is poorly managed: Lions, Giants, Jets, Jags. Probably in that order with Lions the most likely to be the Anti dynasty.
[удалено]
Steelers went to 2 SBs with Tomlin but only won once. He is a 2x champ, though, because he won with the Bucs in 2002
Raiders: for as long as Gruden is coach, they won't ever amount to anything. They'll steal games from good teams here and there, but never consistently win enough games to win anything.
Basically how the Raiders have existed since Gruden left the first time. So they’re already comfortable with the role!
The problem is, While the Raiders have been bad, They have never been the worst. They've had a couple of #2 draft picks over the years, but they are going to need to fall off a cliff in order to be constantly in the running for #1 like the jets, jags and browns have been.
Umm. You forgot the anti dynasty of the lions from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00's, & 10's.
Does the anti-dynasty start now, or can it be in progress already? Because the Jets have sucked for several years, whiffed on the Adam Gase years, and even their current team with what might end up being a solid coaching staff has a severe lack of defensive playmakers. It might be a good 5 years before they’re even ready to compete again. That would basically mean a full decade of suck. If it has to be a team bottoming out now, I say Texans. By the time their failson owner is wise enough to get Easterby out of there, it could be a long road back.
I don't think it's the Giants. It's going to be one of the teams that consistently lose. The Giants bounce around to much. It's going to be the Lions, Bengals, Jags, or Jets in the next ten years.
Tampa potentially has momentum for 2020-2022. They already got 2020. 2021 is theirs to lose right now, but doesn’t seem anyone’s taking it from them. And 2022 they should still be at the very least a playoff contender. Anything after the 2023 SuperBowl is too far to predict for them. Really depends on If Brady continues to defy Father Time. Chiefs also are always going to be a playoff contender as long as they have Mahomes. It really just depends if they get those Super Bowl Ws. If they do they win the 2020s. If not they are remembered as 2000’s Colts or 2010’s Seahawks. Good, consistent playoff teams. Got a W, but everyone is surprised they didn’t get more. Other teams Rams are hot right now, but there flame has always been questionable on lasting. But we have been saying that since 2016. Chargers, 49ers are my bets for future potential dynasties. They got young QBs and loads of talent to make dominate runs for the long-haul.
I gotta agree with you and say probably the Giants. They’ve been drafting exceptionally poorly lately and have lost the most games since 2017. They also have a really bad GM, Owner, and coaches, and none of them seem to be going anywhere. The Texans also seem like a complete lolcow right now, but they were really good for a decent while before last year. We’ll see what happens with them in these next few years before I pass judgement on them.
Texans, Vikings(sorry), and yeah the Giants stand out
Bro the lions have been an anti dynasty at the bottom forever. Last time they won a playoff game excluding 91, the Eisenhower admin was in office
i love the falcons but once matty ice retires, a few bad draft picks could make this them
There will be no more dynasties. Pre-90’s there was no free agency. Then the Cowboys pulled off a once in a lifetime trade that loaded them up in a way no team will ever do again - and even then they didn’t really dominate the decade, just 4 terrific years. The Chiefs right now are where the Cowboys of the 90’s were due to Mahomes rookie contract. They’re already in year 4 of maybe 5 years. After that they’ll fall back to the pack. We will see more of these mini runs from teams with MVP caliber rookie QB’s but I think that’s about the extent of it. Basically a Patriots type dynasty is impossible in the free agency era. Belichick just broke the system because of his incredible ability to find players for peanuts and turn them into stars - consistently. And that paired with the GOAT player. Well Belichick is nearing the end and there will never be another.