Take a break from the predictions and laugh a little...

[nyjunc]

He's not elite, he did very little in postseason until his first good postseason game in 2011 at NE. he was great this postseason but this is a guy Bal won a playoff game w/ when he completed 4 passes.

He's nowhere near the elite discussion. Had a great run, deserves all the accolades for it but a 4 game run doesn't make someone elite.

 

[DuderinoN703]

He's not elite, he did very little in postseason until his first good postseason game in 2011 at NE. he was great this postseason but this is a guy Bal won a playoff game w/ when he completed 4 passes.

He's nowhere near the elite discussion. Had a great run, deserves all the accolades for it but a 4 game run doesn't make someone elite.

You had said the Ravens were elite though, right? If so, what makes them elite specifically?

 

[nyjunc]

the fact that they are constatly competing for SBs, they may not have made and won one until this year but they are at least in the div round every year.

 

[The New Guy]

the fact that they are constatly competing for SBs, they may not have made and won one until this year but they are at least in the div round every year.

As far as discussing which teams are among the best in the AFC or NFC, I would agree with that criteria. I don't like to use the word elite unless that team has won a Super Bowl. Bal making at least the division round in the last 5 seasons with 3 AFCC games and a Super Bowl win makes them elite. However, I would say that if you are consistently a serious contender for the Super Bowl, that you are among the best in your conference.

What is your definition of constantly? I would not consider a team that had 1 or 2 seasons of making the division round one of the best. I wouldn't consider a team that never made it past the division round one of the best either.

 

[nyjunc]

As far as discussing which teams are among the best in the AFC or NFC, I would agree with that criteria. I don't like to use the word elite unless that team has won a Super Bowl. Bal making at least the division round in the last 5 seasons with 3 AFCC games and a Super Bowl win makes them elite. However, I would say that if you are consistently a serious contender for the Super Bowl, that you are among the best in your conference.

What is your definition of constantly? I would not consider a team that had 1 or 2 seasons of making the division round one of the best. I wouldn't consider a team that never made it past the division round one of the best either.

I think the reg season has to count to, I weight the postseason more heavily but Atl has been a 1 seed 2 of the last 3 years and made 4 of the last 5 postseasons. Are they elite? I'd probably put them in based on reg season success b/c they are consistently putting themselves in position to compete for championships even though they never actually do it.

 

[DuderinoN703]

the fact that they are constatly competing for SBs, they may not have made and won one until this year but they are at least in the div round every year.

So to you Flacco has nothing to do with their success the last five years?

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

I think the reg season has to count to, I weight the postseason more heavily but Atl has been a 1 seed 2 of the last 3 years and made 4 of the last 5 postseasons. Are they elite? I'd probably put them in based on reg season success b/c they are consistently putting themselves in position to compete for championships even though they never actually do it.

Atlanta can't be elite if they can't make it to the Super Bowl. They've had decent success but that's all.

 

[nyjunc]

So to you Flacco has nothing to do with their success the last five years?

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------



Atlanta can't be elite if they can't make it to the Super Bowl. They've had decent success but that's all.

Of course he does but that doesn't make him elite, using that logic every starter is elite on Baltimore.

 

[DisturbedShifty]

Flacco is more elite than the back-to-back AFC Championship runner-up Jets.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

 

[Ben Had]

Flacco is more elite than the back-to-back AFC Championship runner-up Jets.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

Flacco won the MVP in the super bowl! There isnt anyone on those Jet teams that could come close to his performance let alone compare the jets team to him!

The Jets AFCC game loses are past history...no one remembers them. Flacco is a winner!!! :lol2:

 

[The New Guy]

I think the reg season has to count to, I weight the postseason more heavily but Atl has been a 1 seed 2 of the last 3 years and made 4 of the last 5 postseasons. Are they elite? I'd probably put them in based on reg season success b/c they are consistently putting themselves in position to compete for championships even though they never actually do it.

I don't like to use the word elite unless the team has won a Super Bowl, but I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC. They have made the playoffs 4 out of the last 5 seasons and won at least 11 games 3 out of 4 of those seasons. The other two they won 9 and 10 games. I don't think you can just look at a specific round a team makes it to in the playoffs, becasue you have to consider who they lost to, who they beat, and how they won if they advanced. Atl was 1 and done in 3 out of their last 4 playoff apps, but look at who they lost to.

AZ in 2008 who was a couple of minutes away from winning the Super Bowl that year.
GB in 2010 who won the Super Bowl.
The Giants in 2011 who also won the Super Bowl.

Had Alt beat mediocre teams allowing them to advance further in the playoffs before losing to one of those teams that made it to the Super Bowl, it wouldn't change my opinion of the type of team Atl is. To me, it is not only regular season success, but who you play in the playoffs and how you won or lost.

So, yes I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC based on their sustained regular season success and based on who they lost to in the playoffs.

What is sustained success to you? Do you really think that making it to the divisional round makes a team elite?

 

[DisturbedShifty]

Flacco won the MVP in the super bowl! There isnt anyone on those Jet teams that could come close to his performance let alone compare the jets team to him!

The Jets AFCC game loses are past history...no one remembers them. Flacco is a winner!!! :lol2:

You're wrong. There is ONE person who does. And won't let us forget it.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

 

[DuderinoN703]

Of course he does but that doesn't make him elite, using that logic every starter is elite on Baltimore.

I guess, I'm not really a fan of individual players being elite b/c the ones discussed are usually the premiere positions (QB, WR, LB, etc). Baltimore as a whole is right up there as being an elite team. Playoffs the last 5 years with back to back AFC Title Game appearances with an advance and win in the SB certainly makes the case.

Next year might be different post-Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and potential others so we'll see.

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

I don't like to use the word elite unless the team has won a Super Bowl, but I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC. They have made the playoffs 4 out of the last 5 seasons and won at least 11 games 3 out of 4 of those seasons. The other two they won 9 and 10 games. I don't think you can just look at a specific round a team makes it to in the playoffs, becasue you have to consider who they lost to, who they beat, and how they won if they advanced. Atl was 1 and done in 3 out of their last 4 playoff apps, but look at who they lost to.

AZ in 2008 who was a couple of minutes away from winning the Super Bowl that year.
GB in 2010 who won the Super Bowl.
The Giants in 2011 who also won the Super Bowl.

Had Alt beat mediocre teams allowing them to advance further in the playoffs before losing to one of those teams that made it to the Super Bowl, it wouldn't change my opinion of the type of team Atl is. To me, it is not only regular season success, but who you play in the playoffs and how you won or lost.

So, yes I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC based on their sustained regular season success and based on who they lost to in the playoffs.

What is sustained success to you? Do you really think that making it to the divisional round makes a team elite?

Atlanta can't possibly be an elite team since they haven't made it to the Super Bowl. If you were to call them elite, what is Green Bay then? Or the Giants? More elite? That isn't a 'thing'.

 

[The New Guy]

Atlanta can't possibly be an elite team since they haven't made it to the Super Bowl. If you were to call them elite, what is Green Bay then? Or the Giants? More elite? That isn't a 'thing'.

I never called them elite. Junc did. I said:

I don't like to use the word elite unless the team has won a Super Bowl, but I would consider Atl one of the better teams in the NFC.

I consider the teams that consistently compete in the playoffs the better teams. The teams that have won a Super Bowl and have / had, or continue to compete in the playoffs are elite. What I mean by that is a team could have been consistently competing in the playoffs before their Super Bowl win and I would consider them elite. I don't have to wait to see if Bal continues to compete in the playoffs to call them elite, since they have already competed the previous 4 years. They had been in at least the divisional round the previous 4 years and made 2 AFCC games. That combined with their Super Bowl win makes them elite.

The Giants are the only exception to my rule. Winning 2 Super Bowls in 5 seasons makes them elite.

 

[DuderinoN703]

I never called them elite. Junc did. I said:



I consider the teams that consistently compete in the playoffs the better teams. The teams that have won a Super Bowl and have / had, or continue to compete in the playoffs are elite. What I mean by that is a team could have been consistently competing in the playoffs before their Super Bowl win and I would consider them elite. I don't have to wait to see if Bal continues to compete in the playoffs to call them elite, since they have already competed the previous 4 years. They had been in at least the divisional round the previous 4 years and made 2 AFCC games. That combined with their Super Bowl win makes them elite.

The Giants are the only exception to my rule. Winning 2 Super Bowls in 5 seasons makes them elite.

I didn't mean you personally, I meant those in general. Your definition of elite is the same as mine for the most part. Winning a SB is the first step in being an elite team b/c otherwise what's the point? Finishing the season without a trophy like the other 31 teams doesn't make a team elite for trying.

 

[The New Guy]

I didn't mean you personally, I meant those in general. Your definition of elite is the same as mine for the most part. Winning a SB is the first step in being an elite team b/c otherwise what's the point? Finishing the season without a trophy like the other 31 teams doesn't make a team elite for trying.

That is why I don't like to use the word elite for teams that have not won a Super Bowl. They need to be distinguished from the teams that have won one. Those teams are the truly elite teams. I do think the teams that consistently compete should also be distinguished from the teams that don't, even if both haven't won a Super Bowl. We can talk about which teams have been the better teams during a certain period of time, or who we think will continue to be the better teams without calling them elite. You and I (and I think most people) reserve that term for the select few that have won a Super Bowl, and I think that fits the term nicely.