Jump to content

Would you rather your team have a 21st century like GB/Indy or TB?


ClutchDJ

Recommended Posts

Tampa getting to and winning the Super Bowl for the first time in almost 20 years due to adding one player is actually humiliating.  
 

They didn’t build a Super Bowl team on homegrown talent.  
 

The 70s Steelers/80s 49ers/90s Cowboys are great examples of that.

And, your team can even have a dynasty-like reputation for making the postseason and getting to the conference title game multiple years.  
 

That’s what people will remember the modern era Green Bay Packers for.  They might have not won the Super Bowl more than once in recent years, but they were competitors for most of those years that got close a lot.  
 

You can’t say that about the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  

Edited by RamblinMan99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RamblinMan99 said:

Tampa getting to and winning the Super Bowl for the first time in almost 20 years due to adding one player is actually humiliating.  
 

They didn’t build a Super Bowl team on homegrown talent.  
 

The 70s Steelers/80s 49ers/90s Cowboys are great examples of that.

And, your team can even have a dynasty-like reputation for making the postseason and getting to the conference title game multiple years.  
 

That’s what people will remember the modern era Green Bay Packers for.  They might have not won the Super Bowl more than once in recent years, but they were competitors for most of those years that got close a lot.  
 

You can’t say that about the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  

So if an organization drafts their franchise QB, they are a more worthy champion?  

The Niners did draft Montana, but traded for Young from ironically TB.

GB traded for Favre from Atlanta.  Are they knocked down a peg?  

Teams in the 90s supplemented their rosters thru  free agency.  Reggie White GB and Deion Sanders for both SF and DAL come to mind as examples.

Maybe the Bucs over the last 6 yrs built a roster thru the draft and FA, but couldn t identify their franchise QB thru the draft.  A team can t consistently win without a top 10 QB even with a well built team on both sides of the ball.  Brady was the final piece to a well built team.  

 

Edited by ravishingone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free agency and the draft are both tools to help your team get better. The draft is not an exact science, I don't think my team is any more worthy for landing a** backwards on the GOAT in the 6th round. They didn't know what they had selected, it was pure luck. I wont be labeling the 49ers geniuses for landing Joe Montana in the 3rd round either. Would you say you look up to a person that wins 50 million dollars in the lottery? They did it the right way?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ravishingone said:

So if an organization drafts their franchise QB, they are a more worthy champion?  

The Niners did draft Montana, but traded for Young from ironically TB.

GB traded for Favre from Atlanta.  Are they knocked down a peg?  

This is true, but there’s a gigantic difference here.  
 

Young and Favre were very young in their careers when they were traded to other teams.  

Green Bay wasn’t entirely sure how much success they would have with Favre and how long he’d last.  Same with Young in San Francisco.  

Conversely, Tom Brady was just about as proven as you can get when he went to Tampa.  
 

They all knew that they had a legitimate and likely shot at the Super Bowl if they added a QB that had been there 9 times before.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

This is true, but there’s a gigantic difference here.  
 

Young and Favre were very young in their careers when they were traded to other teams.  

Green Bay wasn’t entirely sure how much success they would have with Favre and how long he’d last.  Same with Young in San Francisco.  

Conversely, Tom Brady was just about as proven as you can get when he went to Tampa.  
 

They all knew that they had a legitimate and likely shot at the Super Bowl if they added a QB that had been there 9 times before.  

 

Let's keep in mind that the Bucs were underdogs against the Saints, Packers and Chiefs.

Tampa also had the worse QB in two of those three games.

How many wildcard teams have won three road games to make the Super Bowl? Not a lot, this it was not likely that they would make the Super Bowl at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably say GB in the past but the other day I saw a NFL memes account tweeting that the Bucs have more SBs than the rest of the NFC south combined. I clicked on it and many Saints fans were mad there and saying how the Bucs had the lowest winning % in the NFL among other things trying to prove Saints' superiority and the rest of the people there were poking fun at them;

So yeh, in the end the only thing that matter is winning the SB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, LaFellSBXLIXMVP said:

I'd probably say GB in the past but the other day I saw a NFL memes account tweeting that the Bucs have more SBs than the rest of the NFC south combined. I clicked on it and many Saints fans were mad there and saying how the Bucs had the lowest winning % in the NFL among other things trying to prove Saints' superiority and the rest of the people there were poking fun at them;

So yeh, in the end the only thing that matter is winning the SB.

I agree with this.  The Bills teams that went to 4 straight SB appearances and lost is never in consideration for Best Team of All Time.  From a talent perspective that team was as stacked as anyone in the 90s

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LaFellSBXLIXMVP said:

and many Saints fans were mad there and saying how the Bucs had the lowest winning % in the NFL among other things trying to prove Saints' superiority

Up until the Drew Brees era, the Saints were just as much of a doormat as the Bucs so...yea. And even with Brees the Saints kind of meandered there way through a number of seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SalvadorsDeli said:

On the whole you probably had many more fun Sundays as a Packers fan over the past 2 decades than Bucs fans did. 

I don't think it's really worth getting invested as a fan if the only thing that got you excited was rings. 

This is pretty much how I feel, about this. I watch football because in the end, it's enjoyable to me. It's a lot more enjoyable when my team is winning. The Packers have averaged a 10-6 season over the last 20 years. The Bucs have averaged 7-9 over that same timespan. If you're a Packers fan, you were able to enjoy most weekends of football over the last two decades. And even in the losses, you were probably competitive. If you're a Bucs fan, it very much depended. I would rather have the 3 extra wins per year and the 10 extra playoff berths over the 1 extra superbowl ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, SkippyX said:

Tampa and its not even close.

  • Tampa was a very good team for 2000-2001 before they won.
  • Gruden had 3 more winning seasons after the Lombardi.
    • Fans got to enjoy those heroes playing on Sundays.
  • They are likely to be good again next year.

This and 2 rings beats hearing Aaron Rodgers deflect why he lost yet again.

Lets not forget that this was the 2nd competitive NFCCG that Rodgers played in 5 tries, He got annihilated the other 3 times.

  • I'd rather go then not go but I would really prefer not being humiliated when my team was there.

 

The only exception to the rings over everything rule would be the Marlins

  • The Marlins did win 2 rings but they were pretty much garbage every other instant.
    • They bought a bunch of free agents and made some trades for each of those World Series runs and then instantly dumped their players after.

Buccaneers ARE the Marlins. They were garbage for an entire decade. 

Change my mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tk3 said:

Buccaneers ARE the Marlins. They were garbage for an entire decade. 

Change my mind

They are not much different than the Patriots pre Brady. Both with sub .500 all time winning percentages. Bucs have the worst winning percentage in NFL history but had 1 championship to show for it while the Pats had 2 SB losses. Lots of bad years in there but both teams also had some other good years. The Bucs shortly before and after they won the SB and the Patriots really should have had a dominant run with Haynes and Hannah but that got screwed up by certain people obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...