Glazer: Scribe Anoints Pats Over Falcons

Tom Brady will start his 7th Super Bowl this Sunday against the Atlanta Falcons…

Brady and coach New England coach Bill Belichick have teamed up for what most would say has been the most dominant NFL team ever. In fact, Pat’s owner Robert Kraft said this week that he and Belichick have discussed how much longer he plans to coach the team. That they both now know when he will leave, but Kraft did not share that detail with the press.

And while most NFL observers feel that Atlanta has been the overall best team this season, the Patriots are a 3 point favorite.

Why? BRADY!

Tom Terrific has four world titles as does, Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw. However, this is his 7th trip to the big show. Many also say Aaron Rodgers is the best, but he has only one Super Bowl win.

If Tom Brady and his Patriots win this Sunday, Brady will have five championships.

Only Green bay’s Bart Starr has five and three of those were before the Super Bowl era,

Brady’s record may never be broken – seven trips to the Super Bowl as a quarterback on the same team. He lives at the Super Bowl. Another interesting fact is that Brady has had to get it done with several different weapons on offense and defense.

Brady and Belichick are the only constants in this incredible run.

And as of now NO PATRIOT on those past teams are hall of famers.

America seems to want to see Atlanta beat Brady and the Patriots.

Why?

So many fans are just tired of New England and Brady winning.

Brady of course has the deflate-gate and spy-gate scandals, – with the chant, “the Patriots are cheaters.” And yet, he just keeps on being mister perfect on and off the field.

Of course there is great interest from the public of seeing how NFL commish Roger Goodell will handle the trophy presentation to after the game if the Pats win.

Clearly both Brady and Belichick dislike Goodell after Brady’s deflate-gate four game suspension. Many, including me, felt this was way over the top and unfair.

I think Atlanta and Matt Ryan have been just fantastic this season and great in their post season wins.

They look almost unbeatable.

Having said that, I still like the Pats and Brady to win the game: Why? New England is just a machine. They are so experienced in being in the big game at the top of their organization. And Belichick – like him or not – is the NFL’s best coach and he finds ways to take out your best weapons.

If you don’t sack or get to Brady he will carve you up.

So I like New England to win this game 27-23…close.

This entry was posted in Craig_Glazer and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Glazer: Scribe Anoints Pats Over Falcons

  1. The Word says:

    Is it me, or does no one else care about this Super Bowl? I think the NFL and a lot of fans wanted a Raiders/Cowboys game or at least the Boys to be in it. When both of them lost and the Patriot’s are in it, America collectively yawned and said, “Well, I’ll watch it…for the commercials.”

    When does baseball season starts? Here’s to a Cubs/Yankee’s WS. Kick the NFL in the ratings again guys.

  2. Kerouac says:

    “Tom Terrific has four world titles as does, Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw. ”

    – and Bart Starr has 5 – the best ever – and he won them in only 7 years. Starr remains the best ever – period.

    Starr’s post season winning percentage is also best ever at .900 (that translates 9 wins for every 10 games played. Starr was a mere 4 points shy an perfect 6-0 Championship game record, a 3-point loss in his first try the only blemish. Part and parcel, why those Packers teams blow away the cheatriots, 49rs, steelers, cowboys, dolphins, raiders and every other team, NFL history.)

    The other pretenders post season records pale, comparison: aikman (remember him?) .733, brady .727, LEN DAWSON .714, montana .696, elway .667 & roethlisberger .650. Further, even a career journeyman who played with 5 different teams has a better post season record than all the guys just mentioned: trent dilfer, .833 career; too, a bag boy named kurt warner also ranks among the best at .692. For the record, the second best QB (or tied for it, at worst) World Championship wins is another QB whom you forgot – Sid Luckman. Sid won 4, same as brady, montana and bradshaw.

    CG, I can understand a child not knowing (or acknowledging) that there were ‘World Championship’ games before the name was changed to the ‘Superbowl’ 50 years ago, but, an grown man/fan should not ignore history just because it happened before his audience, most of them made up the decrepit or fuzzy cheek faction modern day, the latter’s still in need enlightening; Kerouac is happy to help.

    Revisionist history’s futile plea: today’s players and Superbowl’s are better yesteryear’s and Championship Games; in a horse’s petute, they are.

    One final dissent to your tb reverie… “seven trips to the Super Bowl as a quarterback on the same team.” If/when brady loses tomorrow, he’ll have lost 3 Superbowl’s, i.e., World Championship games – most losses ever next to only Jim Kelly;s 4. So, an guy with an 4-3 career mark (or even 5-2, he fortunate enough to prevail) Championship games cannot by any logical measure be ranked better than a guy who was 5-1 same… Bart Starr. That its taken brady 15 years since he broke in 2001 to manage but 4, yet still be 1 shy of Bart Starr’s 5 won in 7 years… priceless.

    There is/was Starr and Lombardi’s Packers… and then came/comes everyone else.

    ATL 34
    NE 27

    🙂

    • CG says:

      K I went into detail on Bart Starr and the Packers being one of the all-time great NFL teams…I think 7 title games speaks for itself. Brady is TODAYS greatest….game has changed since 50 years ago and Starr. It will change again in time and Brady will be just a memory as we all are.

      • Kerouac says:

        You are correct CG, but further analysis cries out for a reading.

        Obviously time passes & some things change… others, do not, ever. Interpretation differs, but accomplishment lives, fore’er.
        Bottom line: what does not change is the cold, hard sport stat.

        Yes, but a footnote is what brady (as the rest) will be shy being best ever by virtue bettering a player or mark. Yet, as Kerouac has utilized before in argument, ‘more’ does not equate ‘better’ ‘less conscience gives way arbitrary bias and analyzed measure to subjectivity.

        That means, sans any ‘yeah buts’ and ‘if only’s’, ‘but but buts’ & ‘today is better than yesterday’ (roughly translated ‘my daddy is better than yours cause I say so), players & teams cannot rightly be judged only on stat or record, shy understanding what was in effect at a particular moment in time.

        Einstein’s theory of special relativity unnecessary here, rather a matter simple relativity. When all subjective opinions as ‘yeah buts’, ‘if only’s and ‘but but but’s extracted, we are left with but cold, hard stat facts, a perfect qualifier or not, is all we have in the final analysis having set aside subjectivity.

        Gridiron sense, subjective opine fandom was, is & will remain a constant. Just as an present day fan will claim rodgers or brees or brady is the best ever (having never seen or even heard many the great QB’s afore their fanhood began), so too will the casual fan 50 years hence do the same re: this current lot… ‘(insert QB name of the present, 2017) couldn’t hold a candle to (insert the latter day QB name, 2057.)

        We cannot make rules the same across time and sports decades, but we must realize and acknowledge a constant of all eras: that everyone is on the same relative footing at that particular point in time.

        We cannot arbitrarily or universally say that a player from era X is better than a player from era Z (or vice versa) simply because they are newer or fandom is younger & thereby never saw/even heard of a player from before their time.

        Kerouac’s opinion (have seen them all QBs and teams 1950’s to date), ‘progress’ is a misnomer in many ways. Things do not get better much as they change shape, form & by measure. For with any/every change, interpretation necessarily changes too. Every football era has advantage(s) & disadvantage(s), but in the final analysis fandom’s subjective disagreement changes not the gist, nod Parcells – “you are what your record says you are” – teams/ players.

        Example: Kerouac has heard many say the 1971 Chiefs were the best team in franchise history. That they lost more games (and tied another, in fact) that year while other Chiefs teams had an better record(s) and ultimate outcome(s), does not jibe.

        Is ‘more’ of something worth more than ‘better’ in terms result or ratio? That is the noble question, fans of Bill Shakespeare as football same.

        Comparison of accomplishments, it is not a matter of what a QB yesteryear would do vs teams today, or what an QB today would do vs teams yesteryear. They aren’t playing each other for one or in the same venue/time for another. Each QB(s) as their team(s) would have advantage(s) or disadvantage(s) in the other’s eras, were they able be magically transported to/from the other era.

        Upshot: a player and a team playing rules in effect at that time, not playing vs another QB and team from another era, what we are left with – all we are left with – is man/team, his/their stat.

        In conclusion this fascinating narrative mine, with thanks/a nod Professor Irwin Corey, fast approaching age 103 (takes a licking and keeps on ticking, people off), say humbly:

        Vince Lombardi , Bart Starr and the Green Bay Packers remain peerless: the greatest coach, QB & football team ever, because when all asides and fluff are removed, 5 World Championships won in 7 years – 3 of them in a row – and a post season winning % of .900 is considered, none others compare.

        Now, back to 2017… let the pretenders battle over the scraps.

        🙂

      • Kerouac says:

        You are correct CG, but further analysis cries out for a reading.

        Obviously time passes & some things change… others, do not, ever. Interpretation differs, but accomplishment lives, fore’er.
        Bottom line: what does not change is the cold, hard sport stat.

        Yes, but a footnote is what brady (as the rest) will be shy being best ever by virtue bettering a player or mark. Yet, as Kerouac has utilized before in argument, ‘more’ does not equate ‘better’ ‘less conscience gives way arbitrary bias and analyzed measure to subjectivity.

        That means, sans any ‘yeah buts’ and ‘if only’s’, ‘but but buts’ & ‘today is better than yesterday’ (roughly translated ‘my daddy is better than yours cause I say so), players & teams cannot rightly be judged only on stat or record, shy understanding what was in effect at a particular moment in time.

        Einstein’s theory of special relativity unnecessary here, rather a matter simple relativity. When all subjective opinions as ‘yeah buts’, ‘if only’s and ‘but but but’s extracted, we are left with but cold, hard stat facts, a perfect qualifier or not, is all we have in the final analysis having set aside subjectivity.

        Gridiron sense, subjective opine fandom was, is & will remain a constant. Just as an present day fan will claim rodgers or brees or brady is the best ever (having never seen or even heard many the great QB’s afore their fanhood began), so too will the casual fan 50 years hence do the same re: this current lot… ‘(insert QB name of the present, 2017) couldn’t hold a candle to (insert the latter day QB name, 2057.)

        We cannot make rules the same across time and sports decades, but we must realize and acknowledge a constant of all eras: that everyone is on the same relative footing at that particular point in time.

        We cannot arbitrarily or universally say that a player from era X is better than a player from era Z (or vice versa) simply because they are newer or fandom is younger & thereby never saw/even heard of a player from before their time.

        Kerouac’s opinion (have seen them all QBs and teams 1950’s to date), ‘progress’ is a misnomer in many ways. Things do not get better much as they change shape, form & by measure. For with any/every change, interpretation necessarily changes too. Every football era has advantage(s) & disadvantage(s), but in the final analysis fandom’s subjective disagreement changes not the gist, nod Parcells – “you are what your record says you are” – teams/ players.

        Example: Kerouac has heard many say the 1971 Chiefs were the best team in franchise history. That they lost more games (and tied another, in fact) that year while other Chiefs teams had an better record(s) and ultimate outcome(s), does not jibe.

        Is ‘more’ of something worth more than ‘better’ in terms result or ratio? That is the noble question, fans of Bill Shakespeare as football same.

        Comparison of accomplishments, it is not a matter of what a QB yesteryear would do vs teams today, or what an QB today would do vs teams yesteryear. They aren’t playing each other for one or in the same venue/time for another. Each QB(s) as their team(s) would have advantage(s) or disadvantage(s) in the other’s eras, were they able be magically transported to/from the other era.

        Upshot: a player and a team playing rules in effect at that time, not playing vs another QB and team from another era, what we are left with – all we are left with – is man/team, his/their stat.

        In conclusion this fascinating narrative mine, with thanks/a nod Professor Irwin Corey, fast approaching age 103 (takes a licking and keeps on ticking, people off), say humbly:

        Vince Lombardi , Bart Starr and the Green Bay Packers remain peerless: the greatest coach, QB & football team ever, because when all asides and fluff are removed, 5 World Championships won in 7 years – 3 of them in a row – and a post season winning % of .900 is considered, none others compare.

        Now, back to 2017… let the pretenders battle over the scraps.

        🙂

  3. miket... says:

    Yep… Pats win. As you pointed out CG, experience in big games counts and while I’m too lazy right now to look it up, I imagine they’ve got a ton more of that than the Falcons and Matt Ryan, collectively.

    Brady is not easy to rattle, but it can done. But not by Atlanta.

    Pats by 10.

  4. CG says:

    KU beats Kentucky and Baylor than loses at home to Iowa State..REALLY…damn

  5. Jack Springer says:

    Please remove that photo. Very anti-Christian.

    Maybe we should all post photos of greedy Jews ripping off the poor.

    No wonder this site is dying.

    BIGOT!!!!!!!

    • CG says:

      Yes me, Hearne and Trump…knew I could count on you or DICK for a great comment.

      • Jack Springer says:

        You’re an anti-Christian Jewish bigot. No wonder you’re a loser, drug user, and failure.

        • Phaedrus says:

          Jack, that’s a very Christian-like response. I’m sure Jesus (wasn’t he the self-proclaimed King of the Jews) would be very proud of you.

          • See of Galilee Sunday School Student says:

            >wasn’t he the self-proclaimed King of the Jews

            Nope. He says that “his kingdom is not of this world” when questioned on that charge by Pilate. John 18:34.

            At his cruxifiction Pilate writes Jesus of Nazarath, King of the Jews on a sign and affixes it to his cross. John 19:20-21

    • Harry Balczak says:

      At least if the Pats win you know they won’t boycott visiting the white house.

    • CG says:

      I didn’t pick that photo, but have no issue with it…how this is now a ‘jew hate’ is beyond me but that’s on you…you are the hater not me or Hearne…its a ‘football’ story..

  6. Live from El Dorado says:

    Craig: Any comment about the arrest of KC comic Michael Collins Smith on charges of murder? Did he play Sanfords?

    First screetch and todd bridges and now this guy…

  7. CG says:

    As I told media, Mike Smith has been a working comic for more than 10 years both in KC and around the country…he has always been a kind and thoughtful person and helpful now to young up coming talent. He has been involved in city events, charity shows and has been a great father from what I have observed to his two sons…this horrible tragedy is just so out of character from what I know of Mike. We don’t know what happened, was it self defense, why did he have a weapon on him if he did, I just don’t know…my staff and the local comedy world is in shock over this … I hope we find out what brought this on and that Mike will be o.k. I do not know the person who was killed. I considered and said on stage many times, that Mike Smith was one of the most talented comics to come from Kansas City…also he could have moved to LA years ago and done well, he stayed here to raise his family, his sons…who are great young men. My job is not to check out everyones background but to have talent get on stage and do a great job. In people like Mike who worked our clubs a ton as well as the Improv, we all found him to be a pro and a respectful person.

    As for Todd I am not aware of any major past criminal history, he does a nice job for us when he comes in every couple years… I know Dustin very well, nice guy, had a tough childhood and has been trying to grow out of the ‘child star’ issues…the ‘arrest’ was really an overblown media local thing up there…cause he was a ‘someone’ he was defending his lady/wife in a bar scuffle and the very slight wound was from a pocket knife she had, a paper cut…I’ve seen the video, he was under attack from several bar patrons over them wanting photos and autographs from what I could see…nobody was really hurt..this person who got a finer cut just wanted attention and a payday…Diamond is far from dangerous or a criminal…he’s an entertainer…his comedy has grown from hard to watch to really funny…he now employees the ‘arrest’ in his show, by the way he did county time on weekends not prison and again nobody was really hurt but him.

  8. Paul Trembley says:

    The comments on this story might be an all-time best for KCC. A withered old man in a Bart Starr jersey screaming at kids to get off his lawn, an insane “Christian” shouting at people for being “Jewish bigot(s),” the coke-fueled ramblings of a comedy-club owner defending the character of a murderer.

    Really, great stuff you guys.

  9. CG says:

    BEST COMMENTS WHERE MINE ‘BRADY WINS’ HE DID…

  10. Kerouac says:

    Kerouac nails another! 34-27 my prediction, just one point off the 34-28 final wherein the Atlanta Falcons gave a game away, their lessers the cheatriots clearly not as good. But, as everything in this fraudulent sports era the last 46+ years, the uninitiated fan will claim it as legit.

    Speaking of frauds: tammy brady. The most overhyped player in NFL history showed his age tonight, tossing up lame ducks left & right… that is, when he wasn’t looking at the officials for a flag – “hey, that guy touched me!” In doing so, he demonstrated why, despite greatly liberalized offensive rules for passers, receivers and offensive lineman in terms blocking, and via the affirmation Jack Lambert’s ‘QB’s should wear dresses’, tammy ranks no better than 18th among all QB’s pro football history Kerouac’s opine, adjusted for rules changes an watered down game, too many teams, too many players and too many games. Money.

    So, while tammy isn’t the greatest by a long shot, he is likely the luckiest aft wounded ducks his managed find the ground before Atlanta’s hands (Kerouac saw no less than five ints tonight the Falcons missed.)

    Starr won 5 World Championships in 6 tries – and 3 in a row, unmatched NFL history;
    brady won 5 World Championships… in 8 tries. It took Starr just 7 years to win an 5th; tammy needed 16 years to get his 5th… D’OH!

    Speaking of second rate pretenders like tammy brady: when do the swiss chiefs go at it again?

    ‘Wait till next year!’

    Part 2017

    Verse 48

    🙂

    • Paul Trembley says:

      God, are you seriously this terrible? Look, I hate Tom Brady, but Jesus Christ, he’s the best ever. I’m sorry, but Starr was playing against refrigerator repairmen and farm-hands. The sooner you accept your denial, the sooner you’ll…

      Well, wait. No. You’ll still be an insufferable twat. Have fun dying alone at your shoddy coffee table, surrounded by your amazing mounds of old newspapers and the pictures you printed from Facebook of the grandchildren you’ll never meet in real life.

      • Kerouac says:

        Your angst is palpable…. why does opinion contrary to yours vex you so?

        Kerouac as always backs up his narrative with scrupulous fact, whys and wherefores, in lieu ad hominem attack which is your sole forte, appears. Could it be you’ve no rebuttal of substance? Perhaps your boxers are too tight? (they weren’t intended to be worn on your head, you know.)

        Your tantrum re: football yesteryear convinces not, as likely also will not sway fans older than say, 12. Refrigertor repairmen and farm-hands? Kerouac leaves you to your area of expertise.

        You: “Players today are, bigger, stronger and faster

        Me: ‘Yet, they cannot touch the records set by their (in popular modern opinion) ‘lessers’ yesteryear. Why is that, Paul? Do tell.

        Why too has no one come along to better or even match Bart Starr’s records as described? Or Lombardi and the Packers?

        Why, with all the all-time greats like tammy brady, bill belicheat & the cheatriots, have none matched or exceeded the 1972 17-0 perfect season Miami Dolphins?

        Why has no one come along as fast or faster than Bullet Bob Hayes from the 1960’s?

        Why has no player come along as good (as in All Pro or All Star) or as big or bigger than Ernie Ladd, all 6’9 350 lbs. of him, give or take a few eggs at that ‘all you can eat place’ that he and Buck Buchanan frequented, the one that ended their special aft Ernie ate breakfast there three straight days?

        How come Joe DiMaggio, Cy Young and Ted Williams baseball records remain unmatched, unexceeded? How come Norm Van Brocklin, Len Dawson, Dick Night Train Lane and Paul Krause football records still remain unmatched, unexceeded?

        How come Wilt Chamberlain’s multitude of NBA records still stand? Why has no team(s) in baseball, basketball or hockey matched or exceeded the dynastic accomplishments Yankees, Celtics and Canadians? So many questions, so little time and internet paper.

        Unlike Kerouac, you seem to have plenty of time… and none of the answers, Pau Pau.

        OK, your turn.

        🙂

        • Goose13 says:

          Question? Didn’t the quarterback back in Star days call more of their own plays? How many plays do the quarterback call today? That, in my opinion, would speak volumes.

          • Kerouac says:

            Indeed, they did call more of their own plays in the day, yesteryear. Some teams/coaches were more hands on, others less so.

            Q: How would a plethora overhyped & overpaid prima dona QBs today fare if they had to operate sans a helmet headset/play being called in?

            A: like the folks who have been raised to use a GPS, and couldn’t find their backside with out one, let alone a destination other. A road map? Look for road signs? What? How’s that work?

            Look at old film and what you notice is: none of this ‘constant’ shuttling of players/substitution in and out to bring in plays, and QB’s with that deer caught in the headlights look, complaining “Hey, my helmet headset is dead – I can’t hear! Time out, I need help!”

            It’s laughable when someone claims ‘QB’s today have it tougher, due the defenses being so much more complex.’

            Horse puckey.

            Speaking of said, noted with mirth tammy brady yesterday’s Superbowl reading off his wristband … hilarious.

            An example old days an Coach did exert more control was Paul Brown, via his shuttle system using rotating offensive guards, bring in plays.

            Was also a matter how bright your team’s QB was.

            Guys like Bart Starr ( a simpler offense) and Len Dawson KC (more complex), Roman Gabriel LA and Sonny Jurgensen WASH were among others who called their own plays more often than not; they were not alone.

            The game of football today is a farce.

            🙂

  11. Paul Trembley says:

    (and seriously, I HATE Tom Brady, but credit where it is due. You’re just lame, dude.)

    • Kerouac says:

      Wow, that’s some of the worst method acting I’ve ever seen… well here, this time concentrate, focus – really get into your blather so that the audience will find you art least somewhat believable, or even mildly amusing, Pau Pau.

      🙂

    • CG says:

      So I was right bout Tom and Pats but I am Lame huh? Why’s that.

  12. Jim a.k.a. BWH says:

    Tom Terrific was just that. I’m not a fan, but a true admirer of his greatness. Of course, he was aided by the stupidity of the Falcon’s coaching staff late in the game and well within field goal range. Run the ball 3 times and kick the field goal and the Falcons would be World Champions today. But, alas…..

    Congrats to all those dastardly Pats fans. You’ve got to watch the greatest of all time. Fortunately certainly shines on the entire New England area.

  13. Kerouac says:

    Maybe if tammy brady, belicheat & the cheatriots go on another three years – and win three in a row – they’ll deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Vince Lombardi, Bart Starr & the Green Bay Packers, the greatest ever… don’t hold your breath.

    🙂

    • CG says:

      K you are a fantastic writer….but you are stuck on an idea or position and just won’t change no matter what. Tom is the best, the Chiefs and Royals did both win world titles and earned them…yes both franchises are usually bad, but much better lately…

      That was a hell of a super bowl K.

      • Kerouac says:

        You are correct – and so am I. Kerouac is fantastic, and will not change His mind. Shy any fact(s) to change it, be no reason too.

        “Tom is the best”

        – prove your work, CG (this challenge also goes out to any other person who wants to try.) To wit, anyone can say anything, but just because they mouth it does not make it so CG – you, me or anyone.

        Kerouac uses facts… as such, Starr won 3 consecutive World Championships – tammy brady has never come close to that, hence, Starr’s greater/tammy’s not as great.

        Starr won 5 World Championships in a 7 year period – tammy has needed every one of the 17 years his since he arrived, back in 2000. Starr’s greater, tammy’s not as great.

        Starr has a .900 winning % in World Championship games… tammy has a .714 %.Starr’s greater, tammy’s not as great.

        THESE ARE THE FACTS. If one wants to claim today’s players like tammy et al are better because they’re bigger or stronger or faster, that is called waxing SUBJECTIVE, WHICH ANYONE CAN CLAIM, Kerouac included. Is no final arbiter will decide.
        Subjective opine/bias is just that, and cannot be proven. Even were there 100% consensus on any question/debate, mob rule does not ‘validate’ anything, whereas ‘facts’ do.

        Kerouac can just as easily say yesteryear’s players are better and in fact, records still held by the greatest of the great many, many cases bear this out, cannot be denied. As so many modern rules have changed and in essence invalidated/made moot the record book/stats, results teams/coaches, more games, more teams & more players too have compromised and watered down results.

        More games (opportunity), more teams (scrubs aplenty, now), watered down competition via more players (hundreds playing today who would not have been good enough to even make an roster yesteryear when only ‘the creme de la creme’ competed for limited roster spots and teams.

        This sans even broaching the matter of PED use, which call it what it is – cheating (tammy, belicheat & the cheatriots their own special manipulation the rules another matter altogether).
        Despite all that, records do not come with asterisk: all count, even those that predate the Superbowl which is just a newer name for World Championship game, and those games have been going on since the early 1900’s.

        Today, integrity is no more, bastardization the game by sports leagues and their management as well an money-driven media bow$ down to it.

        But, it doesn’t change the facts: yesteryear yet rules, time and time again.

        In conclusion, Kerouac’s facts have just refuted tammy. To call him ‘the greatest’ when he isn’t (show me how he is: he cannot match Bart Starr variously, belicheat cannot match Lombardi, and the cheatriots can’t match the Packers) is pure hogwash.

        Further, even in today’s ‘fraudulent’ modern stat world where td passes, yardage & the like make a player ‘the greatest ever’ mind the nascents, tammy brady isn’t even as good as recently retired Manning or several others of the last couple of decades.

        To claim tammy is ‘greater’ than Starr is like claiming that for Starr 3+2 = 5 but for tammy it somehow equates to more than 5. Ridiculous and too totally illogical, nod Mr. Spock. Speaking of losers other than loser & cheat tammy: losers row includes the swiss chiefs, fraudroyals & hildabeast… frauds all when put under the microscope of actuality, factuality, courtesy Kerouac.

        Perhaps if tammy can win 3 World Championships in a row – like Starr did – he’ll merit mention… shy said, he can’t carry Starr’s shoes nor can belicheat/cheatriots carry Lombardi/ Packers.

        Packers, Lombardi & Starr remain the greatest ever, as proven by the record book & Kerouac (if denied by those cannot accept said truth.)

        🙂

        • CG says:

          K nobody denies Starr’s and Green Bay’s greatness but that was half a century ago and more..today its New England and Brady that’s all…both great and its a different game today…as it will be in another 10 or 15 years…

  14. Kerouac says:

    “K”

    – yes CG?

    “nobody denies Starr’s and Green Bay’s greatness”

    – watch the broadcast media or read print same, and listen to wet behind the ears fans: the football world did not exist before the 21st century according them; if it did, it only began 1967 with Superbowl 1, despite a Superbowl (which is but another name for the ‘World Championship’ game) dating to the 1920’s

    “but that was half a century ago and more”

    – and? So what. Personally, Kerouac prefers leftovers to chef’s surprise, affordable fare to rich man’s and the genuine article to latter day knockoff, nod farce football.

    “..today its New England and Brady that’s all”

    – and that’s the problem: not even a handful of decent teams out of 30, yet almost half of which we are subjected to in post season, bleeding eyes our reward.

    Close 1966 season, advent Superbowl 1 January 1967, 24 pro teams of 40 man rosters totaled 960 players. 50 years hence, 30 teams of 53 man rosters totaling 1,590 players. THAT is the definition/antithesis of ‘only the best’, the formerly great quality was pro football yesteryear.

    Today, 90% (the 27 mediocre teams) make up 1,431 of the now 1,590 total players. 50 years ago close 1966 season/Superbowl 1 1967, were 630 FEWER players pro football. Today, butchers and bakers and candlestick makers populate rosters unlike the days o yore, when (even then) competition between the AFL & NFL for the limited amount of ‘worthy’ talent available out there was what led to the merger, 1970. Still think having more today provides ‘better’ talent, or does it actuality ‘water down’ the quality?

    Having many more teams and players and games today – no one or dollar left behind – is tantamount to choosing up sides in a game your youth: everybody has to be chosen and gets to play, no matter what. The fat kid who can’t run, the sissy who doesn’t like the physicality & the untalented guy with two left feet… welcome to the NFL 2017.

    If you think ‘more’ is better as to quality (‘progress’ is what dupes call it – more teams, more players, more games – more more more), ask yourself this question: why do they have playoffs to pare down from 30 pretenders to the 1 or 2 legits, if be any? Because ‘the best’ are by definition few, not many. Otherwise, every team would be an Hall of Famer and every team Superbowl worthy, winner.

    It is an exercise in football mediocrity, nod moneymaking. Superbowl 1 season, but 2 teams made the post season in each league AFL & NFL, 4 total, or 17%, the two best teams each league based on regular season results & Championship Game leading to Superbowl. Today 2017, no less than 12 teams – that’s ‘40%’ – make post season… no team left behind, no matter how pathetic.

    Q: How does ‘more’ translate being better quality a football sense than the creme de la creme? Extend that out to more teams, more players, more games, etc.

    A: It doesn’t. It’s an on-field display of also-rans & don’t belongs… all in the name of making (quite a few) millions more, Benjamin$.

    “…both great and its a different game today…as it will be in another 10 or 15 years…”

    – if you believe the NFL will exist a meaningful fashion 15 years hence, you also believe the swiss chiefs are Superbowl bound – someday. It’s over CG, NFL just as it has been for the swiss, since 1970.

    The comedy 🙂

    and

    the tragedy 🙁

    be the NFL

    • Kerouac says:

      Addendum: caught an error. The NFL today has 32 teams not 30, so in fact that is actually 8 more teams now (not 6) and 1696 more players (not 1590), which makes the farce that is today’s NFL at an even greater magnitude.

      Upshot; there are actually ‘736’ more players today’s pro football than there were 50 years ago. For perspective, that means that were 40 man rosters in vogue now as they were in the 1960’s, 416 players today are out of a job – or, put another, 10 current NFL teams would be completely non-existent.

      How’s that for an impact?

      Do you think if we extracted 10 teams (we’ll just say for the sake of argument axe the 49rs, Bears, Browns, Jets, Titans, Rams, Jaguars, Panthers, Vikings and Lions, the then unaffiliated talent those teams/416 free agents wouldn’t, signed by the remaining 24 teams, increase the level of talent & play NFL?

      That works out to 17= new players per the 24 teams remaining: imagine the swiss chiefs having an extra 17 players – ‘stars’ among them – to add to their roster. Comprehend that, and you get pro football the way it was back in its heyday, least potentially. The modern rules are still slanted toward offense, but at least the talent level would be more legit than it is now.

      This is the same argument Kerouac has been making re: the present state of the NFL.

      🙂

      • CG says:

        Much of what you say about the NFL’s future is possible. Things in entertainment change very quickly these days and perhaps that will happen with football…I don’t believe it will but who knows.

        A big factor in the NFL is gambling…Las Vegas, who now has a team…that could really effect all that and make it even bigger. Likely sports books will be legal soon naitonwide…they need things to bet on…football is tops in sports books so there you go.

        • Kerouac says:

          CG, not sure the NFL ‘is’ in or ever will be in Las Vegas… we shall see. That said, more impact/typo caught (wish KCC allowed for editing):

          * In fact, it would be almost ’19’ new players per team NFL were they to cut back to 1966/67 levels 24 teams and 40 man rosters.

          Imagine ’19’ new swiss chiefs… perhaps a QB Stafford, or Mariotta or Cutler at KC – that missing ‘competent’ second WR the swiss lack – a new MLB to replace that achilles tendon nee heel the D (double entendre) – RB, DT/DE, a CB… oh the possibilities.

          Then imagine the other 23 teams same adding the same number of talented players to their rosters, all that fluff and excess gone, pared away.

          Less teams/players per = ‘better’ teams and more talent spread equally the remaining and – VIOLA! – the quality of the game would be increased perceptibly to 1960’s & very early 70’s levels (aft which, the rapid descent NFL began, not just in KC but NFL as a whole, very few well-managed teams the exceptions, just as today.)

          See the correlation? More teams, more players, more games = less import, less quality & accomplishment.)

          Really, the recent Superbowl wasn’t anything special: it was a boring game for the majority, as the Falcons were DOMINATING the cheatriots.

          Only towards the end did it change, ATL going more conservative & shooting themselves in the foot. The Falcons gave that game away, the cheratriots did not win it, which is an important distinction. ne tammy, belicheat and the cheatriots are now rank among the most unimpressive & fortunate survivors in World Championship history.

          When coupled the easiness winning in today’s NFL due the bastardization of the game as described by Kerouac variously, and their managing to luck out vs ATL just as they did vs SEAT a couple years before Superbowl, the cheatriots faux legacy has become tarnished even more, when seen through the eyes objective, educated fans.)

          No, yesteryear was the best era ever, days when exciting, legit games were constant.

          🙂

          • Stomper says:

            I hesitate to rattle your cage but it looks like you might be missing something.

            U.S population in 1967 was under 200 million. Today it exceeds 325 million. That seems to level the ratio of roster players from 1967 to the present.

            We’d all love to live in the past and say our own experiences are the most credible (“In my day…”) but that’s not reality.

  15. Kerouac says:

    War & Peace continues now…

    CHAPTER 10

    “I hesitate to rattle your cage but”

    – just couldn’t help yourself, huh…

    “it looks like you might be missing something.”

    – an educated audience?

    “U.S population in 1967 was under 200 million. Today it exceeds 325 million. That seems to level the ratio of roster players from 1967 to the present.”

    – ‘if’ increase in NFL population as human equates not only maintaining level of talent but exceeding that former players a substantial degree (it does according some people, making players even ‘better’ today), why have a multitude of records set by yesteryear players been neither matched or exceeded?

    If such fallacy were fact, today’s players would be ‘better’ due both evolution & greater population plus the use of PEDs. Yet, progress is laughed at in its face various players / teams yore, their records still intact as Kerouac has shown. If so many things in life today are better – and if so, shouldn’t everything be better – why then all this 125 mill more people, aren’t players/their results better?

    “Leveling the ratio” = you’re falling prey to the same misconception the NFL does (their case, only the benefits of ‘more’ $ concern them.) Has more teams, players & games really made the game ‘better’? It has resulted almost 40% of teams qualifying (misnomer) post season today NFL, compared mere 17% yesteryear. Not creme de la creme, rather no team left behind/almost half the league gets participation trophies / post season berths… all in the name of revenue$. Those who think it is a better game today are likely not old enough remember/appreciate the way it once was.

    Whether ’twas Al Einstein, Mark Twain, an old Chinese proverb or Ben Franklin who said it first, “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results be insanity” (like Washington D.C. throwing ‘more’ $ at a problem makes it better.)

    More years go by, more teams proliferate, more players and games too. More traffic. More crime. More war. More money. More, more, more, more, more. More people.

    EM Cioran said it, same applies the NFL as humanity: “The flesh spreads, further and further, like a horrible gangrene upon the surface of the globe. It cannot impose limits upon itself, it continues to be rife despite its rebuffs, it takes its defeats for conquests, it has never learned anything.”

    By evidence, the NFL game is in free-fall, quality/level of competition, fan interest too as a result/part & parcel a dwindling broadcast viewership. Some will continue delude themselves, and, bleeding the turnips still much as possible, NFL will continue to love em$ forever [‘When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.’]

    Kerouac has proven through factual results NFL/records in lieu subjective opine, that ‘more’ does not make ‘better’. Don’t follow or be the herd… thin it out. For, to ‘assume’ based aft the fact evidence the contrary that (EX: because polling service (pre-election Trump vs hildabeast) predicts a win nee landslide broom-hilda, it will be so. Was it?
    ______________________________

    CHAPTER 11

    ‘More’ is not the same as ‘better’

    ‘Bonds is the best hr hitter ever!’ cry the uneducated. Yet Sadaharu Oh hit ‘more’ hrs than anyone including Bonds, history organized professional baseball. A ‘lesser’ level play/ competition compared MLB, Japanese baseball say those so convinced, making themselves final arbiter.

    PED era MLB several players eclipsed several hr marks by virtue use medicinal assist. Are they ‘better’ as a result, or are those results verily suspect? They said that the AFL wasn’t as good as the NFL too, once upon a time… until proven errant. Maybe Oh was just oh so much better than any MLB hr hitter. Proving it otherwise is impossible, as only subjective opines and ‘yeah buts’ as ‘if only’s are plead… no evidence.

    When Bonds, Aaron and the ‘best’ hr hitter ever MLB Babe Ruth, had the same # of at bats 8399, Ruth retired with 714 hrs. When Bonds and Aaron had a similar # at bats/ opportunities 8399, Bonds had only 619 hrs and Aaron only 493 hrs.

    Who was ‘best’ and who hit ‘more’ are distinct. Ruth’s at bat to hr ratio was better than Bonds or Aaron, despite the preponderance of evidence being former was an PED user while the latter guy was not: examples Ruth ‘legit’ record, modern day fraud ‘illegit’.

    Mark McGwire ended his career running on fumes, an physical casualty his admitted use of a PED. Tho he had an slightly better at bat to hr ratio than Ruth by virtue PED use, still finished a distant 131 hrs behind Ruth. So, who was better? Keroauc waxing subjective for a moment, had Ruth used PEDS he might have hit 1000-1500 hrs. Too, were Bonds, Aaron & McGwire et al shorn of either PEDS, or otherwise sent back in time, perhaps (likely) they would have not hit anywhere near as many hrs as they did. Ruth was hitting ‘more’ hrs and at a ‘better’ ratio than entire TEAMS in his day. Why did no other player his time match that feat? Why does no player today come close to said?

    Upshot: Ruth is still the greatest of all-time (and yes, Ruth also had a better at bat to hr ratio the year he hit 60 hrs, than Roger Maris did the year he hit 61: Maris needed 40 more at bats to even tie Ruth at 60.) All of them Bonds, Aaron & McGwire, merely ran past the finish line of an race that Babe Ruth had already won, years before – old school cool/greatness yet RULES again, compared the modern farce players/games.

    “We’d all love to live in the past”

    – so what’s stopping you? Those say you can’t go home again are mistaken… Kerouac has happily never left the past – as such, reason finds the modern world so much less satisfying, comparison.

    “and say our own experiences are the most credible (“In my day…”) but that’s not reality.”

    – it’s not a matter how anyone ‘feels’, rather what does evidence affirm. Do as Kerouac has re: records, players, teams yesteryear – prove your work. Shy said, just be flappin’ your gums.

    🙂

    • Paul Trembley says:

      Nobody read this.

      • Stomper says:

        Right you are Paul but the regulars here at KCC have suffered our share of metafictional pleonasts and debating with them is Sisyphean.

        Confident the K man is crafting his response currently.

    • Kerouac says:

      Kerouac… Sage, Savant, Savior – aka Lays Potato Chip of Blogdom – no one can read Him just once!

      🙂

Comments are closed.