Gonzo Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Well, IMO, for the general NFL fan who has no rooting interest in either team, this is going to be one hard game to watch and care about unless somehow Denver pulls off a miracle. It really could be one of the classic beatdowns from years past. So, have there been any commercial teasers? The only one I know about is that Nintendo's doing a live-ac Pokemon commercial... I don't know. Denver was supposed to get their asses kicked by the Steelers, and then they were supposed to get their asses kicked by the Patriots. Maybe Zombie Peyton has one more in him. I don't think I'd get my hopes up for it or anything, but hey. . .stranger things have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincey Greene Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 OK, coming over here to actually talk football in the football area from that Royal Rumble thread. To Josh Mann: I never argued that the Panthers were undeserving, so I'm not sure why you felt that you had to argue that they weren't. They certainly are. They're likely the best team in the league even if they lose to the Donks. To Vincey Greene: No, I wouldn't say the 2014 Seahawks are as good as the Panthers. Talent on the field might be similar, but the coaching in CAR was simply far superior this year. I wouldn't say that the DeBartolo 49ers are the only teams that would be better than the Panthers. At least two of those Parcells' Giants teams from the '80s, the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys teams of the '90s, probably the Donks' teams that won back-to-backs, the '02 Ravens, probably three or four Belicheck Patriot teams (though probably only one of the Super Bowl winners, funny enough) and yes, the '12 Seahawks. That's off the top of my head. And no, whether they win or lose (let's hope win because I want to see all the haters get salty that Cam has a ring and also Donkeys fans can be pretty mean), that won't change things. And my point about the Giants wasn't that CAR is also 9-7. My point was that the best team doesn't always win the title since Josh Mann was insistent that only wins matter. Well, for a Lombardi, sure, but not for deciding who is the best team of all time. Also, you don't know what a strawman is. He's the guy in the Wyatts. I threw out the DeBartolo Niners as a quick answer. They weren't the only answer. I'd also say the 72 Dolphins and 85 Bears are better. Perhaps the 2012 Seahawks but they were fundamentally similar to the team we beat twice this year, so perhaps not. The '10 Pats are a given, I firmly disagree with the Ravens. Either way, by your measure or mine, we're in the ballpark of top 10 - which is all I said - so I'm not sure what the debate is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogwelder Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 People also sleep on how good the '91 Skins were that year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Who thought Pittsburgh, without Brown or Bell, with a hurt Ben, was winning against Denver? Now people did think New England would, but I don't remember hearing people pick the Steelers at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxB Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Remember when everyone thought RGIII was the next super-legend quarterback, and that Cam Newton was an empty gloryboy who didn't know how to win when it mattered? Wasn't long ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Really, that's a fool's argument anyway. Because football, of all sports, is probably the trickiest to cross eras with to determine any kind of historical ranking. Most other sports, the biggest difference is bigger/stronger/faster. For football, it's that versus rules disparity versus ability to put a team together versus at-the-time style of play coupled with learning curve on said style at that particular time, to name just a few disparities. There are A LOT of advanced and unanswerable variables. Well, it's a fool's errand to do it for any sport because we'll never know for sure! It's fun to talk about, though. There are more variables in something like football or basketball, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to figure them out. My only issue was when Vincey called them a top-ten all-time team on the basis of their 15-1 record, which simply isn't good enough, sixteen small points of data. We never talk about the 1998 Vikings as a best of all time team and they went 15-1 and might have won a Super Bowl if their kicker didn't miss an easy field goal at the end of a playoff game. Is a kicker missing a FG he usually makes the difference between a top-ten all-time team and being forgotten to history? That seems silly. That's why we need to think about the idea beyond "look at the record" and "scoreboard." However, it's definitely Carolina's year and I look forward to another NFC team blowout of the Broncos and maybe a ton more terrified Peyton Manning photoshops in two weeks. I threw out the DeBartolo Niners as a quick answer. They weren't the only answer. I'd also say the 72 Dolphins and 85 Bears are better. Perhaps the 2012 Seahawks but they were fundamentally similar to the team we beat twice this year, so perhaps not. The '10 Pats are a given, I firmly disagree with the Ravens. Either way, by your measure or mine, we're in the ballpark of top 10 - which is all I said - so I'm not sure what the debate is. Nah, I wouldn't say that by my measure you are, but then again, you could be. I'd have to look at what y'all accomplished in a few different ways. The 2013 (I wrote 2012, was wrong, that team had no pass rush) Seahawks beat a Panthers team that was fundamentally similar to the 2015 Panthers team, so maybe the Panthers aren't top ten either. I'm not serious about that statement, by the way, just trying to show you the flaw in your logic. You're still focused on SSS and not on the bigger picture. The Wyatt thing made me laugh. Good luck to your guys in two Sundays! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 People also sleep on how good the '91 Skins were that year...I think they were the best team of all-time. #1 offense (30 pts/game), #2 defense (14 pts/game). They had 3 shutouts and won 5 games by 25+ points. They had an outstanding receiving corps, a terrific running game, and a quarterback playing out of his mind for an entire year. They went 14-2 and then killed all three of their playoff opponents. They beat the Detroit Lions - the second-best team in the entire NFL that year (12-4, including a road win over Buffalo and a blowout playoff win over Dallas) TWICE. By a combined score of 86-10.Speaking of that quarterback, Mark Rypien is from the Spokane area and lives here, doing all kinds of work supporting his Rypien Foundation. Met him at a Spokane Indians game last year and I told him I was a Lions fan and he'd broken my heart that year. Told him "man, you guys just killed us" and he got this really nice smile on his face and said "yeah, we did" as if I'd brought back a really pleasant memory for him. Very cool moment. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Suppose the Broncos somehow snag four pick-6s and win the Super Bowl. Would that make this year's Peyton Manning the worst QB to ever win a Super Bowl? To clarify, I'm only talking about a QB's performance the year they won a Super Bowl. So, for these purposes, Joe Montana counts as four different guys, Eli counts twice, etc. 1974 Terry Bradshaw? 2015 Peyton? Who's the worst of the champs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The Ravens won a Super Bowl with Tony Banks, right? Hold on. *searches* It was 2000 Trent Dilfer, and here were his stats: Comp/Att: 134-226 Comp Pct: 59.3% Yds: 1502 YPC: 6.6 TD: 12 INT: 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Manning had 198-331, 59.8%, 2,249 yards, 6.8 ypa, 9 tds and 17 int Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 So razor thin edge to Manning on completion percentage and ypa, huge edge for Dilfer on td-int Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyboy Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Suppose the Broncos somehow snag four pick-6s and win the Super Bowl. Would that make this year's Peyton Manning the worst QB to ever win a Super Bowl? To clarify, I'm only talking about a QB's performance the year they won a Super Bowl. So, for these purposes, Joe Montana counts as four different guys, Eli counts twice, etc. 1974 Terry Bradshaw? 2015 Peyton? Who's the worst of the champs? Has anyone winning the Super Bowl in the live-ball era rocked almost 1:2 TD:INT like Peyton this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I take back the 2000 Ravens being better than the 2015 Panthers, by the way. The gap in QB play is so absurd that the 2015 Panthers are better on that metric alone. 2000 Ravens might have the best defense ever to play in a Super Bowl, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyboy Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 2000 Ravens might have the best defense ever to play in a Super Bowl, though. 2000 Ravens might have the best defense ever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I think when it comes to discussing cross-eras in football it works, to a point, but probably not if you go back into the 60's or further. Shit if you go back to the 50's you start finding guys that were all stars on both offense and defense and you wonder if you're even talking about the same sport. It's a game that really went through radical changes from around WW2 up through the early 70's. After that sure there are plenty of differences but it's no more or less manageable than talking other sports, really. This shouldn't imply I don't have great respect for players from those past eras, merely that trying to compare, like, Sammy Baugh to Brett Favre is basically something I see as a waste of time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Suppose the Broncos somehow snag four pick-6s and win the Super Bowl. Would that make this year's Peyton Manning the worst QB to ever win a Super Bowl? To clarify, I'm only talking about a QB's performance the year they won a Super Bowl. So, for these purposes, Joe Montana counts as four different guys, Eli counts twice, etc. 1974 Terry Bradshaw? 2015 Peyton? Who's the worst of the champs? Has anyone winning the Super Bowl in the live-ball era rocked almost 1:2 TD:INT like Peyton this season? No, not even close. I've checked a couple dozen guys so far and the only comp I've come up with is Bart Starr, who exactly matched Peyton's 9:17 with one of his own the year the Packers won Super Bowl 2. But that was way before the live ball era. In the last 30 years, every QB has been better than 1:1 on TD:INT ratio. A couple guys came close, like Dilfer with his 12:11 in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 2000 Ravens might have the best defense ever to play in a Super Bowl, though. 2000 Ravens might have the best defense ever. I'd say they were the best defense I can remember (and that goes back to 1982 or so). Outside of an aberration against Jacksonville (36 pts allowed), they gave up 8.6 pts/game. That's crazy. 4 shutouts in the regular season and 5 other games of 10 points or less. Gave up a total of 23 points in four playoff games. Incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niners Fan in CT Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 '84 niners were 2nd in points and 1st in points against and went 18-1. Honorable mentions to the '89 niners and the '94 niners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolfan in NYC Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 '84 niners were 2nd in points and 1st in points against and went 18-1. Honorable mentions to the '89 niners and the '94 niners. [i deleted a bunch of curse words before posting] 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 '84 niners were 2nd in points and 1st in points against and went 18-1. Honorable mentions to the '89 niners and the '94 niners.I have no problem with anybody taking the '84 Niners team as the best. They were awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Now go brush your uh, is that a bird? Yeah, do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJay Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The only chance I see that the Broncos have is if Cam has an off game due to their great defense. I see this game going two way and both have the Panthers on top. First is that they destroy the Broncos with a score of something like 45 - 13. The second is defensive battle with the score being 19 - 14. Panthers D going against noodle arm Manning is going to be scary. If Peyton takes as many hits as Palmer did then he won't last more than a quarter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 As much as the Denver D slapped Brady around, they still barely won the game. I hate(sports hate, not real hate) the Pats as much as anyone, but they really should have won. Between the missed extra points and the fgs not taken, the Pats just missed winning, and if the game was two minutes longer would have taken it. So take that, and factor in that Denver won't have the mile high advantage, and Carolina looks to be the overwhelming favorite. Not that I have any skill at predicting games whatsoever. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Brady was hit more times than any QB in a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wilson Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Really they should at least start Brock Osweiler, and announce it now so the Panthers have to prepare for someone with an arm. Then if Brock isn't calling the right plays/gets hit a lot/looks confused then Manning can come in fresh and pick up where he left off. Not like Manning needs first team reps anyway. They won't do that of course, but I think that would help their chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts