Super Bowl XLVIII

Post Reply
User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

Super Bowl XLVIII

Post by oldecapecod11 »

ARCHIVE

Super Bowl XLVIII
Started by Rupert Patrick, Jan 19 2014 11:27 PM

Page 1 of 7

137 replies to this topic

#1 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:27 PM
It promises to be a great match-up; for the first time since 2009 I feel that the two best teams are playing for the title this year.

#2 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:39 PM
Dick Sherman is the most classless good player since Terrell Owens. Golden Tate is pretty obnoxious too. Seahawks fans apparently threw stuff at Navorro Bowman as he was carted off the field tonight.

I don't know of any classless players on the Broncos.

Eight years ago the Seahawks had a likeable Super Bowl team. This time they have a vile one. A vile one is better than not having one. Maybe the team I root for will get to one before I turn 79.

#3 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors
668 posts
Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:48 PM
I think the Seahawks have a very dangerous combination of a defensive backfield that can lockdown on Denver's receivers and a front seven that can put pressure on Manning.

#4 Bob Gill
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member

1,200 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:14 AM
I thought I'd seen too much boorishness from jerks in the NFL to be surprised by it any more, but you're right about Sherman. Duane Thomas no longer owns his crow for the most classless postgame "interview" ever. And I bet you're right about the fans throwing stuff at Bowman. I wondered what he was reacting to when they showed him riding on the cart.

#5 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors
1,163 posts
Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:41 AM

Reasons to think the Broncos can win -

1. Historically, when a great defense has been pitted against a great offense, the great D has come out on top. However, the game has never been more geared towards the passing game then it currently is and the Broncos have one of the best qbs ever with a number of weapons at his disposal. And you know he's going to put in hour after hour of film study over the next two weeks looking for tendencies and weaknesses in Seattle's Pass D. I think this will be the toughest matchup Sherman and co. have had this season.

2. While the Broncos don't have a great D and are missing their most talented player, their run D has played well over the last few weeks. If that continues in the SB, it puts more of the burden on Wilson (who's looked shaky lately) to beat them through the air.

3. While the home to road drop off isn't as bad as it's been for the Saints, the Seahawks are not as strong outside of "The Clink".

#6 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 20 January 2014 - 08:15 AM
Bob Gill, on 20 Jan 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:
I thought I'd seen too much boorishness from jerks in the NFL to be surprised by it any more, but you're right about Sherman. Duane Thomas no longer owns his crow for the most classless postgame "interview" ever. And I bet you're right about the fans throwing stuff at Bowman. I wondered what he was reacting to when they showed him riding on the cart.

I saw the on field interview, and I thought for sure he was going to drop a profanity or two. I noticed they ended the interview pretty abruptly, it is possible there was something that was edited out at the end. I'm expecting he is going to continue his trash talking over the next two week and levy a fine from the league.

While I don't have a horse in this Super Bowl, I was kinda rooting for Seattle as they have one of the most rabid fan bases in the league, and they haven't won before, but I don't know if I can support a team like this. I suppose over the next two weeks we'll find out a lot more about the players on both teams.

#7 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 20 January 2014 - 09:11 AM

As someone else once said, "Absolutely no class. And maybe that comes from their head coach."

Sherman, who has proven himself to be the worst winner in the NFL, made a choke gesture late in the championship game. Pete Carroll did the same thing in a 1992 game at Miami, a game Carroll's defense would eventually blow.

#8 JohnH19
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors
1,356 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Winnipeg
Posted 21 January 2014 - 10:29 AM
I'll be pulling for the Broncos. Peyton deserves better than morons questioning his career due to a lack of rings.

#9 SixtiesFan
Veteran
Forum Visitors
524 posts
Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:29 PM

JohnH19, on 21 Jan 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:
I'll be pulling for the Broncos. Peyton deserves better than morons questioning his career due to a lack of rings.

Well said.

#10 TouchdownTimmy
Starter
Forum Visitors
326 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Maryland
Interests:Almost anything to do with football and sports on the field. I am not big into celebrity or social media. I just like watching and talking about sports. Football is my game and I have been following since I was five back in 1971.
Posted 21 January 2014 - 08:45 PM

JWL, on 20 Jan 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:
As someone else once said, "Absolutely no class. And maybe that comes from their head coach."

Sherman, who has proven himself to be the worst winner in the NFL, made a choke gesture late in the championship game. Pete Carroll did the same thing in a 1992 game at Miami, a game Carroll's defense would eventually blow.
You know what I did when they cut to Sherman? Changed the channel. After 40 years you see a train wreck before it happens. Besides the game was over. I changed the channel as soon as the AFC game ended too.

Looks like Pete Carroll can coach in the NFL after all, huh? Wonder how NFL Net is going to edit that Top 10 list.

#11 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 21 January 2014 - 09:51 PM

TouchdownTimmy, on 21 Jan 2014 - 8:45 PM, said:
You know what I did when they cut to Sherman? Changed the channel. After 40 years you see a train wreck before it happens. Besides the game was over. I changed the channel as soon as the AFC game ended too.

Looks like Pete Carroll can coach in the NFL after all, huh? Wonder how NFL Net is going to edit that Top 10 list.
I'm happy to see Carroll have success in Seattle. I felt he got a raw deal in New England.

#12 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 22 January 2014 - 03:20 AM

TouchdownTimmy, on 21 Jan 2014 - 8:45 PM, said:
You know what I did when they cut to Sherman? Changed the channel. After 40 years you see a train wreck before it happens. Besides the game was over. I changed the channel as soon as the AFC game ended too.

Looks like Pete Carroll can coach in the NFL after all, huh? Wonder how NFL Net is going to edit that Top 10 list.

What was the top 10 list?

I thought he was alright as a NFL coach prior to going to Seattle.

#13 Bryan
Veteran
Forum Visitors
662 posts
Posted 22 January 2014 - 09:57 AM
I actually enjoyed Shermans postgame comments. Reminded me of Mr. T's "Hey Woman" speech in Rocky III.

The negative media reaction was much ado about nothing, IMO, as it usually is.

#14 conace21
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors
1,293 posts
Posted 22 January 2014 - 11:00 AM
He was on the list of Top 10 Coaches who would have stayed in college.

#15 byron
Starter
PFRA Member
259 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:03 PM
As much as I like Wilson, he's about all I like about Seattle. I'm rooting for the Broncos.

Report
#16 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:36 PM
Bryan, on 22 Jan 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:
The negative media reaction was much ado about nothing, IMO, as it usually is.
Agreed. The self-righteous love to conjure up ways to be 'offended', and need an outlet for their faux-outrage.

People act like Sherman committed a crime and dropped f-bombs on national TV . . . What he really did was say some facts (he is the best Corner in the league), gave his opinion on Crabtree, and talked some relatively harmless "trash-talk" (oh no! he said he'll shut someone's mouth . . . so let's cry about it?) ... There was no interview being cut off because of so-called "bad language", there was no so-called bad language at all, and Erin Andrews has even said she loved the interview, which is no surprise because she's a pro and isn't mentally weak. Plus of course she comes equipt with common sense which sadly many are lacking, he just made a winning play to help send his team to the Super Bowl and gets a mic put in his face and people - most who have never played football - somehow expect emotionless, cliche answers.

#17 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:39 PM
Nobody expected emotionless cliched answers. The guy engaged in Santonio Holmes-like look-at-me nonsense. I hate when players don't win with class. See the Patriots after the win over the Chargers in the 2006 playoffs and the Jets after the win over the Patriots in the 2010 playoffs. I didn't like the actions.

Slapping an opponent's ass, making a choke sign, and publically belittling an opponent you just vanquished is poor sportsmanship.

I don't care if what he said was true. I don't care if that means I am mentally weak. What Sherman displayed was poor sportsmanship. How anyone could argue otherwise is beyond me. Until Sherman proves otherwise, he is a poor sportsman.

#18 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member
323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 22 January 2014 - 03:07 PM
I'm with Reaser and Bryan. They are the epitome of class on this forum, proof that all the cliches about internet trolls are completely false, and they are bang on about Sherman. He's out there as an example to our youth, being a living, breathing example of the values that the NFL is promoting all across North America.

#19 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 22 January 2014 - 03:12 PM
Sherman is actually a good person off the field. This was documented in a Sports Illustrated article some months back. It is disappointing he made the end of the championship game about himself.

He apologized for the antics.

#20 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 22 January 2014 - 03:27 PM

Jeremy Crowhurst, on 22 Jan 2014 - 3:07 PM, said:
I'm with Reaser and Bryan. They are the epitome of class on this forum, proof that all the cliches about internet trolls are completely false, and they are bang on about Sherman. He's out there as an example to our youth, being a living, breathing example of the values that the NFL is promoting all across North America.
Not sure what the trolls part is about?

On Sherman; he's actually a great example, for those that watch NFL Films programming his charity and community work should be no secret. Obviously I live in the area, his foundation actually had an event the morning after the NFC Championship, collecting shoes and books and such for kids. Graduated from Stanford, and coming where he came from, making it this far and giving back, I'de actually say he is a success story and a great example of what one should inspire to.

Does a 15 second, in the heat of the moment post-game interview where he talked about a guy who - allegedly - tried to fight him at a charity event and who he just beat, define the person Richard Sherman is? I personally don't think so. I found the interview harmless if not slightly entertaining, no different than Steve Smith saying about Janoris Jenkins that "if I see him in the streets I’m going to punch him in his ******* mouth." Sometimes what's said on the field and/or out of the public eye carries to post-game interviews. It's not a big deal, to me. Especially shouldn't be the 'news' that the media is making it out to be, which is why I agreed with Bryan.

Page 1 of 7
oldecapecod 11
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

Re: Super Bowl XLVIII

Post by oldecapecod11 »

ARCHIVE continued
oldecapecod 11

Super Bowl XLVIII
Started by Rupert Patrick, Jan 19 2014 11:27 PM

Page 2 of 7

137 replies to this topic
#21 Bob Gill
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,200 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 22 January 2014 - 03:57 PM
Well, I found Sherman's postgame "comments" pretty disgraceful, and as JWL said, I don't see how anybody can justify them. However, I his later apology -- about saying that stuff in the heat of the moment and so on -- and I have to say that's reasonable. And also, it was just something he said, as opposed to a player who tries to cripple another guy with a cheap shot. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm still rooting for Denver, but no longer AGAINST Sherman.


#22 Bryan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 662 posts
Posted 23 January 2014 - 06:54 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 22 Jan 2014 - 3:07 PM, said:
I'm with Reaser and Bryan. They are the epitome of class on this forum, proof that all the cliches about internet trolls are completely false, and they are bang on about Sherman. He's out there as an example to our youth, being a living, breathing example of the values that the NFL is promoting all across North America.

If you go an re-watch Rocky III, you'll notice that Clubber Lang isn't really the villain. If anything, Rocky is the bad guy. Everything that Clubber says is true. He was raised by the rough streets of Chicago. He trains hard every day in a dingy gym. Rocky has money, fame, a palatial estate. Rocky won't give Clubber a title shot even though Clubber is the #1 contender.

Similarly, while perhaps what Sherman said was in "bad taste" and done with poor timing...but it wasn't untrue.

#23 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:05 PM
The video on the NFL website offers quite a different perspective. It shows that Sherman extended his hand and was congratulating Crabtree for a good game when Crabtree pushed him away. Then you see the brief TV interview, which was ended abruptly not by the interviewer, but by Sherman himself, as he went back to hug and congratulate two other 49ers, Quinton Patton and LaMichael James.

#24 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:29 PM
rhickok1109, on 23 Jan 2014 - 9:05 PM, said:
The video on the NFL website offers quite a different perspective. It shows that Sherman extended his hand and was congratulating Crabtree for a good game when Crabtree pushed him away. Then you see the brief TV interview, which was ended abruptly not by the interviewer, but by Sherman himself, as he went back to hug and congratulate two other 49ers, Quinton Patton and LaMichael James.
Yup, was shown on Inside the NFL on Showtime last night, as well as ple NFL Network programs. It was already being said - at least here in the Seattle area - that Sherman was saying good game (helluva game) to Crabtree, and as we all saw Crabtree responded with a shove to his face. The interview being ended by Sherman was obvious watching it live, then confirmed locally as well. Only the audio and the congratulations to Patton and James - who Sherman checked on his health, were new information. None of it quite fit with the need to be offended by something crowd and the he's a no class, no sportsmanship, "thug" agenda people have been trying to push.

Regardless, people that have played football understood the comments, situation, heat of the moment, etc ... and/or weren't offended by them, like Curtis Martin who understood and was not offended, for example ... Michael Irvin and Willie McGinest even pointed out how it wasn't Sherman who took the attention away from his teammates, but it was in-fact the media that was doing so (along with those in the general public that have to find things to be offended by) ... Probably 9 out of 10 former players that I've heard on TV or read their comments in articles thought the Sherman stuff was overblown by media and wasn't a big deal. Really the only two that I've seen or read say different were Deion Sanders, who only had a problem with Sherman talking negative about an opponent because Deion said he never did things like that . . . and I read John Madden thought it was embarrassing, his reasoning was because of children/role models. Otherwise, the best thing said was probably by Phil Simms who said; "Don't act all appalled", aiming that at the faux-outrage crowd.

Though profits are important, the sport must take precedence over the business

#25 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:43 PM
We saw Sherman extend his hand to Crabtree on Fox on Sunday. As for the interview with Andrews, that was ended by Andrews it appeared. Not that it matters.

Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't enjoy it if a rival just made a play to end my season and he patted my butt and (likely sarcastically) said "good game."

My whole take here is the John Madden angle. I don't like seeing poor sportsmanship. This is not difficult to understand. Since when is directing a choke sign to an opponent good sportsmanship? One good thing about college football is you rarely see this sort of junk.

Cut it out with the "faux outrage" stuff. There is nothing to debate. He either did the choke sign or he didn't. He either belitted an opponent publically after a game or he didn't.

#26 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 23 January 2014 - 10:20 PM

JWL, on 23 Jan 2014 - 9:43 PM, said:
patted my butt and (likely sarcastically) said "good game."
Then he would have had to have been doing that sarcastically all game, surely you watched the game and saw after they were matched up that Sherman would pat Crabtree's butt or his helmet after a play? The P.I. probably being the best example, after Sherman obviously held him and then as Crabtree was walking away he patted him on the helmet in the non-malicious way of saying "good battle" ... Not sure how trying to shake an opponents hand and telling them "helluva game" is sarcastic and it certainly didn't come across that way when shown last night, especially taking into account Sherman's previous interactions with Crabtree throughout the game.

People can choose to be offended and/or see things how they would like, doesn't bother me. I assumed a majority of football players wouldn't be offended by it and watching NFLN, INFL, Fox Football Daily and listening to NFL Radio throughout the week, it appears I assumed correctly. The two 49ers fans I'm friends with said nothing of it, one even asked if I thought Sherman should be DPOY.

There's NFL players that have broken laws this season have got less attention than Sherman is getting for a short, meaningless and completely harmless interview. Player A gets DUI and no one bats an eye, hell Darren Sharper was just accused of rape and how many posts how there been here on that? Sherman says he's the best corner in the league, says good game to a guy who allegedly tried to fight him at a charity event, also checks on the health status of James after the game, and somehow people act as if Sherman committed a crime. Maybe you are correct and faux-outrage is the wrong word, maybe self-righteous is better?

I was - initially - responding to how the media has covered it, and the general public's reaction. Words like disgraceful, thug, classless, etc get thrown around. It's crazy. I see competition, rivalry, heat of the moment. Football players evidently aren't offended by it, so hard for me to see it as anything other than people/never played football media/general public finding something to be offended by. I mean really, people care that much that he said Crabtree was sorry, and mediocre?

#27 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 23 January 2014 - 10:46 PM
If you are asking who is the bigger scumbag signs would point to Darren Sharper.

Faux outrage would be the act of pretending to be when you are not mad. I am not outraged. Rather, I am pointing out that I felt Sherman displayed poor sportsmanship. I will never have outrage over antics on a football field unless it involves my son someday.

I didn't have any issue with Sherman's loudness or making an adrenaline-fueled comment. All that considered, there is no need to take down an opponent in that spot. Crabtree being mentioned in the Erin Andrews interview was bad, I thought.

Patting a guy on the butt and saying "good game" obviously was not well-received by Crabtree. So we can make assumptions. A.) Sherman said it sarcastically, B.) Crabtree is some sort of wacko or C.) Sherman meant it sincerely, but it wasn't the proper time to say it. You don't normally see those actions. The problem is that Sherman gave a choke sign moments later. Therefore, one assumption appears more solid than the other.

I don't like guys grabbing their junk regions after scoring (Marshawn Lynch, Logan Ryan). I don't like taunting for 30 yards (Golden Tate). I don't like choke signs (Pete Carroll, Sherman). I don't like excessive first down signalling (Santonio Holmes). I have pointed this out in the past. It is not outrage. That is way too strong a term.

#28 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 23 January 2014 - 11:30 PM

JWL, on 23 Jan 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:
The problem is that Sherman gave a choke sign moments later. Therefore, one assumption appears more solid than the other.
Okay. We have the past, obviously something happened between Sherman and Crabtree at a charity event (allegedly Crabtree is at fault here), Crabtree had a harmless comment about Sherman leading up to the game, then the obvious of the Seahawks-49ers rivalry, not to mention that this was the NFC Championship . . .

During game: Sherman and Crabtree battle, Sherman pats Crabtree on the back of the helmet which is universally a sign of respecting the opponent/saying "good battle" ...

Sherman makes a great play, celebrates, composes himself enough to run over to Crabtree, pat him on the backside and say "helluva game, helluva game" and stick his hand out to shake it, Crabtree pushes him in the face.

After that . . .

Sherman then gives the choke sign. Then when the game is over he yells across the field and within seconds of the end of the game gets a mic stuck in his face by a deportes network which he yells about being the best CB and Crabtree, E.A. follows up, he gives her a hug, she asks question and he again yells about being the best and Crabtree. Then he says "L.O.B. I'm done" and ends the interview . . . Then runs over to Patton and handshake/hug, good game. Then does the same with James and asks if he's okay.

I'm not a psychologist but if Crabtree shakes his hand does Sherman do the choke sign and give the interview he gave? If Crabtree didn't allegedly try to fight him at a charity event does Sherman give the interview he gave? etc and etc ... In my opinion people saw a short interview and based all their opinions off of that, uneducated opinions based off lack of knowledge of the situation, lack of understanding of the situation and lack of understanding the emotions of football, etc and etc ...

but I don't know, like I said, people can see it how they would like. As I said, I was initially responding about the ridiculous media coverage (which is still happening days later, for the record) and the ridiculous - racist and otherwise - comments from the general public/online comments.

Though profits are important, the sport must take precedence over the business

#29 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member 323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 24 January 2014 - 02:00 AM
Bryan, on 23 Jan 2014 - 6:54 PM, said:
Similarly, while perhaps what Sherman said was in "bad taste" and done with poor timing...but it wasn't untrue.

Exactly what did Crabtree do on the play that made him a "sorry receiver"? It looks like Sherman made a great play on a ball that maybe shouldn't have been thrown. How is Crabtree, and not Kaepernick, the goat there?

#30 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 24 January 2014 - 02:17 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 24 Jan 2014 - 02:00 AM, said:
Exactly what did Crabtree do on the play that made him a "sorry receiver"? It looks like Sherman made a great play on a ball that maybe shouldn't have been thrown. How is Crabtree, and not Kaepernick, the goat there?
I don't think he meant that single play made him a sorry receiver, I think he meant in general. Which is where Deion had a problem with what he said, saying it was ignorant to say Crabtree was mediocre.

Also, the choke gesture was aimed at Kaepernick, according to Sherman, because he dared to throw at him with the game on the line. So I think he had both ends covered - though he did say he did the choke sign after/because? Crabtree pushed him in the face and that's when he "went off."

Though profits are important, the sport must take precedence over the business

#31 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member 323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 24 January 2014 - 05:51 PM
Reaser, I think you're missing the point a little bit here. Richard Sherman is a very smart guy, degree in communications and as I understand it, is working on his master's degree. He's smart enough to know that there are some people where, because of your pre-existing relationship, there is just nothing you can say to them and expect it to be received positively. Given Sherman's history with Crabtree, and the fact that he'd just broken up a likely game-winning play, he cannot reasonably have expected Crabtree to be in too sporting a mood.

Notwithstanding that, the outrage by the public -- and we're talking about the millions of people watching the game, including parents watching with their children, as well as the couple of hundred former players -- is based on Sherman making the choking motion, something that any player would know was likely to get rebroadcast after the fact, and his interview, which any player would know was likely to be more along the lines of front-page material.

You might agree with Sherman that words like "thug" aren't a proper description for him. But you can probably at least understand that when a er asks, "take us through the final play", and his answer is to yell at the camera, "don't you ever talk about the best", and "don't you ever open your mouth about me or I'll shut it real quick" an awful lot of people are going to conclude that that sort of behaviour is thuggish, classless, and lacking in sportsmanship.

It's great that you were able to access other footage that showed how he was behaving both during and after the game that reflects well on him. But I can guarantee you that there were tens of thousands of fathers who, after seeing that interview, turned to their sons and said something along the lines of, "I don't ever want to see you act like that." If you're somehow suggesting that the public should be reserving judgment until they have pored through all the available footage of how he behaved at other times in the game, that's just not realistic.

He did what he did, and he said what he said, on live t.v., knowing full well that it was going to get replayed. He can talk about how unfair it is, but like Bill Parcells (admittedly meaning something a little different) said, you are what you're record says you are. His actions after the game are a big part of his record.

#32 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 24 January 2014 - 06:59 PM
Sherman was fined $7,875 by the league for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Same amount Darnell Dockett was fined earlier this season for blatantly stepping on Chris Williams hand.

Fines are always hilarious, lesser amount than players have got fined for wearing team colored but the wrong cleats this season.

I get the point, Jeremy. I was responding to media coverage, the ridiculous comments and the outrage from the general public. I see it the same way as the vast majority of past and present football players evidently do, others see it different, that's cool.

Sherman will be playing in the Super Bowl so I think he's coming out of it just fine.

Though profits are important, the sport must take precedence over the business

#33 Bryan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 662 posts
Posted 24 January 2014 - 09:59 PM
I like it when the media complains about an interview, then puts it on the front page.

"This is terrible! Buy our newspaper and see why!!"

#34 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member 323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 25 January 2014 - 02:02 AM
Bryan, on 24 Jan 2014 - 9:59 PM, said:
I like it when the media complains about an interview, then puts it on the front page.

"This is terrible! Buy our newspaper and see why!!"
Like they say, if it bleeds, it leads.

#35 oldecapecod2
Starter
Forum Visitors 393 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Cape Haze, Florida
Posted 25 January 2014 - 09:54 AM
Another feeding frenzy by media too lazy or unable to develop their own story.
Soon they will be digging up photos of Chuck Bednarik leaping with "joy" over a fallen Frank Gifford.
It is those of this ilk that ran the DEWEY WINS headlines and then returned to the oblivion of slumber.

#36 PeterS
Second-Stringer

Forum Visitors 51 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Jersey
Posted 25 January 2014 - 12:06 PM
I thought more negatively of Sherman's tone of voice than his actual self-serving statement or choke-sign.
Seemed to me like Erin Andrews was just doing her job, asking a question, and he starts yelling at her.

I never understood those "on field" interviews just before, after, and during halftime of games anyway. Someone walks up to a head coach before the second half starts, sticks a mic in his face and says "Coach, you're down 49-0. What are you going to do differently in the second half"? What are they expecting for an answer?

Maybe I'm just getting too old.

Thanks,
Peter

#37 Mark
Starter
PFRA Member 301 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 25 January 2014 - 01:09 PM
PeterS, on 25 Jan 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

I never understood those "on field" interviews just before, after, and during halftime of games anyway. Someone walks up to a head coach before the second half starts, sticks a mic in his face and says "Coach, you're down 49-0. What are you going to do differently in the second half"? What are they expecting for an answer?

I remember watching a South Carolina game a couple years ago and the Gamecocks had given up about 30 pts in the first half and Steve Spurrier was asked as he left the field about what their strategy for the second half would be --- his response was "certainly not the same as it was in the first half"

#38 slats7
Second-Stringer
Forum Visitors 92 posts
Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:19 PM
AFAIK, only three SB QBs have been benched for poor performance: Morrall, Morton, and Eason. Any more?

#39 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:23 PM
Reaser, on 23 Jan 2014 - 11:30 PM, said:
I'm not a psychologist but if Crabtree shakes his hand does Sherman do the choke sign and give the interview he gave? If Crabtree didn't allegedly try to fight him at a charity event does Sherman give the interview he gave? etc and etc ... In my opinion people saw a short interview and based all their opinions off of that, uneducated opinions based off lack of knowledge of the situation, lack of understanding of the situation and lack of understanding the emotions of football, etc and etc ...

but I don't know, like I said, people can see it how they would like. As I said, I was initially responding about the ridiculous media coverage (which is still happening days later, for the record) and the ridiculous - racist and otherwise - comments from the general public/online comments.

There was a good chance Sherman was not going see Crabtree when the game officially ended and the two teams would head out onto the field to congratulate the opponent on a well played game. With that in mind, maybe the move is to say something to Crabtree that would not piss him off. Based on what I saw, and using common sense, I think Sherman was being sarcastic and a sore winner after slapping Crabtree's rump and saying whatever he said. ("Hell of a game, hell of a game" can indeed be delivered sarcastically depending on the tone, facial expressions and when it was said.) Sherman has a bad reputation with this type of stuff and, unfortunately, he is not going to get the benefit of the doubt.

My take on the issue has not changed.

I believe Sherman was purposefully being annoying to Crabtree in that spot.
The choke sign was classless.
Belittling an opponent after winning was classless.
Being loud during a post game interview is nothing.
Not answering Erin Andrews' question was not a problem.

I like talk leading up to a game. I like it during a game. Once a game ends, I feel it is better to not poke fun at the opponent.

#40 conace21
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,293 posts
Posted 26 January 2014 - 03:24 PM
slats7, on 26 Jan 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:
AFAIK, only three SB QBs have been benched for poor performance: Morrall, Morton, and Eason. Any more?

David Woodley

Page 2 of 7

oldecapecod 11
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

Re: Super Bowl XLVIII

Post by oldecapecod11 »

ARCHIVE continued
oldecapecod 11

Super Bowl XLVIII
Started by Rupert Patrick, Jan 19 2014 11:27 PM

Page 3 of 7

137 replies to this topic
#41 Todd Pence
Veteran
Forum Visitors 625 posts
Posted 26 January 2014 - 05:05 PM
slats7, on 26 Jan 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:
AFAIK, only three SB QBs have been benched for poor performance: Morrall, Morton, and Eason. Any more?
Jim Kelly in XXVII


#42 slats7
Second-Stringer
Forum Visitors 92 posts
Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:04 PM
Todd Pence, on 26 Jan 2014 - 5:05 PM, said:
Jim Kelly in XXVII

he was injured, not benched


#43 conace21
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,293 posts
Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:52 PM
Kelly, Kapp and Unitas all left due to injury.
Staubach, Dilfer, Humphries and Namath also left due to injury but returned to finish the game. And obviously there have been numerous QBs who have sat once the game outcome was decided.

#44 TouchdownTimmy
Starter
Forum Visitors 326 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Maryland
Interests:Almost anything to do with football and sports on the field. I am not big into celebrity or social media. I just like watching and talking about sports. Football is my game and I have been following since I was five back in 1971.
Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:13 PM
Bradshaw did not finish Super Bowl X due to injury. Tarkenton was benched in Super Bowl XI after his pick 6 to Willie Brown.

#45 conace21
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,293 posts
Posted 27 January 2014 - 09:32 AM
Jim Kelly left Super Bowl XXVI with a concussion but returned to play the 4th quarter and throw a pair of TD's.
Doug Williams injured a knee but came back on the very next series. It really makes the Redskins' outburst that much more amazing.
I had forgotten about Bradshaw because Hanratty never threw a pass.
I had always assumed that Tarkenton wasn't necessarily benched for poor play. It was just Minnesota pulling their starter once they had fallen behind by 4 scores. (25 points)

#46 SixtiesFan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 524 posts
Posted 27 January 2014 - 10:13 AM
conace21, on 27 Jan 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:
Jim Kelly left Super Bowl XXVI with a concussion but returned to play the 4th quarter and throw a pair of TD's.
Doug Williams injured a knee but came back on the very next series. It really makes the Redskins' outburst that much more amazing.
I had forgotten about Bradshaw because Hanratty never threw a pass.
I had always assumed that Tarkenton wasn't necessarily benched for poor play. It was just Minnesota pulling their starter once they had fallen behind by 4 scores. (25 points)

Yes, the game was decided by the time Bob Lee came in for Tarkenton.

#47 Todd Pence
Veteran
Forum Visitors 625 posts
Posted 27 January 2014 - 04:11 PM
Whatever happens in the Super Bowl, we're guaranteed a rematch next fall. I wonder if next year's Denver-Seattle tilt will get the Thursday night opener slot.

#48 RebelX24
Starter
Forum Visitors 186 posts
Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:10 PM
Somebody just mentioned Champ Bailey in another thread, and it reminded me: what are the odds that Bailey retires after this, whether he wins or loses? He doesn't have a heck of a lot left in the tank, at this point.

#49 TouchdownTimmy
Starter
Forum Visitors 326 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Maryland
Interests:Almost anything to do with football and sports on the field. I am not big into celebrity or social media. I just like watching and talking about sports. Football is my game and I have been following since I was five back in 1971.
Posted 28 January 2014 - 07:53 PM
SixtiesFan, on 27 Jan 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

Yes, the game was decided by the time Bob Lee came in for Tarkenton.
True. What I find interesting is that such a competitor as Tarkenton would allow himself to be taken out of a game like the Super Bowl no matter what the score.

#50 SixtiesFan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 524 posts
Posted 29 January 2014 - 12:49 AM
TouchdownTimmy, on 28 Jan 2014 - 7:53 PM, said:
True. What I find interesting is that such a competitor as Tarkenton would allow himself to be taken out of a game like the Super Bowl no matter what the score.

The way things were going I don't think Tarkenton minded leaving the game.

#51 Todd Pence
Veteran
Forum Visitors 625 posts
Posted 29 January 2014 - 04:04 PM
Len Dawson was pulled late in the first Super Bowl for Pete Beathard. I don't think an injury was involved.

#52 conace21
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,293 posts
Posted 29 January 2014 - 06:55 PM
I chalk that up to being removed once the game was out of hand, like John Elway was removed against NY and I think SF.

#53 SixtiesFan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 524 posts
Posted 29 January 2014 - 09:55 PM
It's never been unusual for a star quarterback to be removed when the game is obviously lost.

#54 conace21
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,293 posts
Posted 29 January 2014 - 11:53 PM
Or when they are won. Zeke Bratkowski: I and II. Mike Rae: XI. Steve Fuller: XX. Jeff Rutledge: XXI. Steve Young: XXIV.

#55 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:09 AM
I suppose it is time to make my Super Bowl prediction; last year I posted on this forum 36 hours before game time that the Ravens would defeat the 49ers 34-31. This time around, it's a tough call. I think this game is the closest I have seen to a virtual tossup since the Giants and Bills in Super Bowl XXV. I have a mathematical system for predicting the winners of postseason games based on information available before the fact, and the system picks the winning team 69 percent of the time. For Super Bowl XLVIII, it projects Seattle has a 51 percent chance of winning the game, with Denver at 49 percent, and in terms of points, it favors the Seahawks by less than a half a point.

Usually I try to balance all the factors and something will stick out at me. For one thing, people talk about Seattle having a huge home field advantage, and while it is true that they do benefit from it, in 2013 they were 7-1 at home and 6-2 on the road. The Broncos had similar marks at home and on the road. The previous meeting was in 2010 and Denver won 31-14, but that is meaningless as both starting QB's and Coaches in that 2010 game are not playing in the Super Bowl. Both teams had five common opponents, the Giants plus the four AFC South teams, and both teams lost to Indianapolis by six points in high scoring games but won the other four contests. I see neither team having an advantage at this point.

Looking at points, the Broncos scored the most points in the league, no surprise, and the Seahawks allowed the fewest. The Broncos defense was 22nd in points allowed, which the Seahawks offense was eighth in points scored. Denver and Seattle finished 1-2 in point differential with 207 and 186 respectively. I think if you cancel out the Broncos offense with the Seattle defense, you have the Seattle offense against the Denver defense, and in that case, I think Seattle gets an edge.

The other way I try to approach a Super Bowl is to look for the historical parallels, and the one I keep looking at with regards to this game is Super Bowl XXXVII, Oakland vs. Tampa Bay. In that game you had the two best teams in the league throughout the regular season, great offense squaring off against great defense, with the Raiders being led by the best QB in the league squaring off against the tough Bucs defense. In that case, the Bucs went ahead 20-3 at halftime and pushed the score to 34-3 before the Raiders came back with three TD's to make it 34-21, but two late pick sixes by the Bucs put the game away at 48-21. The Bucs defense shut down Rich Gannon, forcing five INT's, three of which were returned for TD's. Once again, Seattle gets the edge.

I also think that Super Bowl XXV is a parallel to this game, in that you had the Bills K-Gun offense against Belichick's defense, and again, good defense beat good offense. I just don't find that many examples in the postseason where the best offense takes on the best defense, and the team with the better offense wins. Another advantage in Seattle's favor.

Another historical parallel I want to look at is the extremes. How often does the team that scores the most points in the NFL during the regular season win the Super Bowl? How often does the team that gives up the fewest points in the NFL during the regular season win the Super Bowl. In the 90's, there were five season in which the team who led the NFL in points scored won the Super Bowl (1991 Redskins, 1994 49ers, 96 Packers, 97 Broncos and 99 Rams) and only two who gave up the fewest points and won the Super Bowl, the 1990 Giants and 1996 Packers. Since 2000, there has only been one time when the team who scored the most points in the league won the Super Bowl, that being the 2009 Saints. In comparison, four teams have given up the fewest points and won it all - 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2003 Patriots and 2008 Steelers. Keep in mind that since the Millenium, we have seen a number of explosive offenses go down in flames in the Super Bowl, the 2001 Rams, 2002 Raiders, 2005 Seahawks, 2007 and 2011 Patriots, all to teams with tough, scrappy defenses, Again, this seems to favor Seattle.

While I don't expect the Seahawks to return three picks for scores, I do think they will get a pick six against Manning that will seal the win in much the same way the Saints got a late interception return for a TD to put the Colts away in Super Bowl XLIV. I am picking the Seahawks, 24 to 16.

#56 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 01 February 2014 - 12:00 PM
An excellent and very interesting analysis. I wonder, though, if your system takes into account the quality of opponents. I think Seattle's defense may be somewhat overrated, because they didn't play against many good offenses. Among the offenses they faced were the NFL's three worst, Tampa Bay, Houston, and Jacksonville. The best offenses they played against were Orleans (10th) and San Francisco (11th), both of whom they played twice. The others were Carolina (18th), Arizona (16th), Indianapolis (T-14th), Tennessee (19th), St. Louis (21st), Atlanta (20th), Minnesota (T-14th), and New York Giants (28th). There's not much high-quality offense in that mix.

#57 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 01 February 2014 - 01:13 PM
If the Seahawks win on Sunday and their defense handles the Broncos offense fairly well where will you rank this Seattle teams defense in terms of all-time great defenses. Do you think they should be considered just as good as the '85 Bears? Of course their numbers aren't quite as good as that Bears team but it also is a lot more difficult to shut offenses down in this day and age than it was in 1985.

#58 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member 323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 01 February 2014 - 01:29 PM
Tampa - Oakland is unique in that the coach of the best defense had of course been the coach of the best offense the year before, and was in a unique position to school his peeps on how to get the better of Gannon. Which they did.

I don't disagree with your assessment that the game is basically a toss-up, but the fact that the Giants beat the Patriots in 2007, or the loss of any other high-scoring team to a top defensive team, has no predictive value whatsoever in determining the likelihood of one team or the other winning tomorrow. It's like going back to 1997 and saying that the Packers were going to beat the Broncos because the NFC had won the last 13 (or however many it was) Super Bowls.

#59 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 01 February 2014 - 02:33 PM
lastcat3, on 01 Feb 2014 - 1:13 PM, said:
If the Seahawks win on Sunday and their defense handles the Broncos offense fairly well where will you rank this Seattle teams defense in terms of all-time great defenses. Do you think they should be considered just as good as the '85 Bears? Of course their numbers aren't quite as good as that Bears team but it also is a lot more difficult to shut offenses down in this day and age than it was in 1985.

No.

They could be considered top 10 all-time in the Super Bowl era, but I don't think they are close to the '85 Bears, '00 Ravens, '02 Buccs, and some of the great Steelers and 49ers defenses.


#60 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 01 February 2014 - 06:12 PM
Seattle over Denver was my preseason pick, suppose it was the obvious pick to make. Didn't put a score on it so I'll say 27-17 Seahawks. Will be 20-17 and then I agree with Rupert on a pick six to seal it. Marshawn Lynch as MVP, or at least the deserving MVP since the voters are lazy and just end up giving it to the winning QB.

Page 3 of 7
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

Re: Super Bowl XLVIII

Post by oldecapecod11 »

ARCHIVE continued
oldecapecod 11

Super Bowl XLVIII
Started by Rupert Patrick, Jan 19 2014 11:27 PM

Page 4 of 7

137 replies to this topic
#61 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 01 February 2014 - 06:34 PM
Broncos 28-20 makes sense to me from what I have seen from these teams.

The Broncos have been using the Jets facilities, though. The Jets cooties may attach themselves to the Broncos. This is a great advantage for the Seahawks.

#62 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 01 February 2014 - 08:26 PM
rhickok1109, on 01 Feb 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:
An excellent and very interesting analysis. I wonder, though, if your system takes into account the quality of opponents. I think Seattle's defense may be somewhat overrated, because they didn't play against many good offenses. Among the offenses they faced were the NFL's three worst, Tampa Bay, Houston, and Jacksonville. The best offenses they played against were Orleans (10th) and San Francisco (11th), both of whom they played twice. The others were Carolina (18th), Arizona (16th), Indianapolis (T-14th), Tennessee (19th), St. Louis (21st), Atlanta (20th), Minnesota (T-14th), and New York Giants (28th). There's not much high-quality offense in that mix.

I'll give an overview of how this thing works. My system (which I call the PPS or Playoff Prediction System) started out with over 120 different questions about each postseason game, such as "Did the team who rushed for more yards in the regular season win the postseason game in question?", "Did the team whose defense gave up fewer first downs rushing during the regular season win the game?" and "Did the home team win the game?" and "Did the team whose head coach had more years experience as a head coach than his opponent win the game?". All questions that can be answered before the game. Some of these questions were very strong indicators, others, not so much, and some were interconnected to other questions.

I kept track of how often the answer was yes, no, or a situation where the teams were tied i.e. they rushed for the same number of TD's during the regular season or had the same winning percentage. I then weeded these down to 46 questions, 15 offense, 15 defense, and 16 miscellaneous, seven of the miscellaneous which were net questions, such as "Did the team with the best net yards per play (offensive net yards per play minus defensive net yards per play) in the regular season win the postseason game?". I came up with a system for weighing each variable, so that each team that leads in each category (such as total rushing and passing plays on offense) gets a point value for leading the category. If you lead in the category, you get all the points in the category, like the Electoral College, and if the two teams have the same number of rushing attempts on offense, the split the total number of points in the category. The points values were pro-rated to a total of 999 and rounded off to whole numbers, and the team who gets 500 or more total points in the PPS is predicted to "win" the game. Running these questions on all postseason games since 1941, the PPS has picked the correct winner of all postseason games from 1941 to present (a total of 500 games) 69.6 percent of the time.

For Super Bowl XLVIII, Seattle has 510.5 points and Denver 488.5 points. The system takes into consideration winning percentage of opponents, that is a total of 8 points, and the two strongest ones are Home Field Advantage and better won loss record, each 156 points. It also looks at momentum, or which team is playing better as the season progresses, and which team won the previous meeting between these teams, and which teams was more successful the previous season, in addition to point differential and winning percentage against .500 or better teams in the regular system. It's got about everything I could possibly build into it except the kitchen sink. The strongest Offensive Factor is a thing I call Rating, which is (Points Scored^3)/(Yards rushing and passing combined^1.5)/(games played^1.5), using offensive regular season statistics; the team who leads in this particular category gets 36 points. The strongest defensive factor is actually Fewest Pass TD's allowed, which is 31 points.

The system is not 100 percent accurate, sometimes I disagree with the results, as last year it predicted a San Francisco win in the Super Bowl and I went against it and predicted a Baltimore victory. Some factors I have not found a way to quantify, such as the fact it was Ray Lewis's final game, and how does that affect his team. I do not consider injuries, and the system does not look at individual player match ups, or questions such as "How will team A's offensive line stack up against team B's defensive line?" I do not take into account how the teams played in previous postseason games (if any) during the season in question. These are the kinds of things that once I or somebody else figures out how to overcome, will make the system more accurate.

I've been working privately with this PPS system since 1986, and with my upcoming book which I should have finished later this year it will be released to the world, and at that time, it is hoped that others will look at it and come up with ways to improve it or things I may have missed. I do believe with some tweaking, a system of this kind could predict the winners of postseason games with 75 to 80 percent accuracy.

#63 NWebster
Veteran
Forum Visitors 796 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Philadelphia, PA
Interests:Defensive FB Stats, Special Teams Performances, Heavy Metal Music, Fitness
Posted 01 February 2014 - 08:47 PM
Rupert Patrick, on 01 Feb 2014 - 8:26 PM, said:
I'll give an overview of how this thing works. My system (which I call the PPS or Playoff Prediction System) started out with over 120 different questions about each postseason game, such as "Did the team who rushed for more yards in the regular season win the postseason game in question?", "Did the team whose defense gave up fewer first downs rushing during the regular season win the game?" and "Did the home team win the game?" and "Did the team whose head coach had more years experience as a head coach than his opponent win the game?". All questions that can be answered before the game. Some of these questions were very strong indicators, others, not so much, and some were interconnected to other questions.

I kept track of how often the answer was yes, no, or a situation where the teams were tied i.e. they rushed for the same number of TD's during the regular season or had the same winning percentage. I then weeded these down to 46 questions, 15 offense, 15 defense, and 16 miscellaneous, seven of the miscellaneous which were net questions, such as "Did the team with the best net yards per play (offensive net yards per play minus defensive net yards per play) in the regular season win the postseason game?". I came up with a system for weighing each variable, so that each team that leads in each category (such as total rushing and passing plays on offense) gets a point value for leading the category. If you lead in the category, you get all the points in the category, like the Electoral College, and if the two teams have the same number of rushing attempts on offense, the split the total number of points in the category. The points values were pro-rated to a total of 999 and rounded off to whole numbers, and the team who gets 500 or more total points in the PPS is predicted to "win" the game. Running these questions on all postseason games since 1941, the PPS has picked the correct winner of all postseason games from 1941 to present (a total of 500 games) 69.6 percent of the time.

For Super Bowl XLVIII, Seattle has 510.5 points and Denver 488.5 points. The system takes into consideration winning percentage of opponents, that is a total of 8 points, and the two strongest ones are Home Field Advantage and better won loss record, each 156 points. It also looks at momentum, or which team is playing better as the season progresses, and which team won the previous meeting between these teams, and which teams was more successful the previous season, in addition to point differential and winning percentage against .500 or better teams in the regular system. It's got about everything I could possibly build into it except the kitchen sink. The strongest Offensive Factor is a thing I call Rating, which is (Points Scored^3)/(Yards rushing and passing combined^1.5)/(games played^1.5), using offensive regular season statistics; the team who leads in this particular category gets 36 points. The strongest defensive factor is actually Fewest Pass TD's allowed, which is 31 points.

The system is not 100 percent accurate, sometimes I disagree with the results, as last year it predicted a San Francisco win in the Super Bowl and I went against it and predicted a Baltimore victory. Some factors I have not found a way to quantify, such as the fact it was Ray Lewis's final game, and how does that affect his team. I do not consider injuries, and the system does not look at individual player match ups, or questions such as "How will team A's offensive line stack up against team B's defensive line?" I do not take into account how the teams played in previous postseason games (if any) during the season in question. These are the kinds of things that once I or somebody else figures out how to overcome, will make the system more accurate.

I've been working privately with this PPS system since 1986, and with my upcoming book which I should have finished later this year it will be released to the world, and at that time, it is hoped that others will look at it and come up with ways to improve it or things I may have missed. I do believe with some tweaking, a system of this kind could predict the winners of postseason games with 75 to 80 percent accuracy.

Seems to me the logical step is to run the factors through a Logistic Regression Model to ensure the weights are represented in as statistically accurate a way as possible.

#64 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 02 February 2014 - 11:08 AM
JWL, on 01 Feb 2014 - 2:33 PM, said:

No.

They could be considered top 10 all-time in the Super Bowl era, but I don't think they are close to the '85 Bears, '00 Ravens, '02 Buccs, and some of the great Steelers and 49ers defenses.

I agree. They were an outstanding defense, but not in the sense of the 69-71 Vikings, 63 Bears, 74-76 Steelers, 85 Bears or 00 Ravens. Some of these teams were perceived as having great offenses because they were at or near the top of the league in points scored, but it was more a function of turnovers returned for TD's or turnovers recovered deep in enemy territory that set up a lot of short scoring drives.

I have compiled a list of the top takeover ratios (per game) from 1941 to 2013. The Seahawks had a ratio of +20, or 1.25 a game, which would put them in the top 50 all time. I just have this data for postseason teams, but I would be very surprised if there was a team with a turnover ratio of +1.5 per game or higher and not in the postseason.

1 - 83 Redskins +2.69
2 - 58 Baltimore +2.5
3 - 63 Chicago +2.21
4 - 41 Green Bay +2.18
5 - 59 Baltimore +2.17
6 - 44 New York G +2.1
7 - 50 New York G +2
8 - 62 Green Bay, 46 Cleveland +1.92
10 - 50 Cleveland +1.83
11 - 10 New England and 11 San Francisco +1.75
13 - 65 Green Bay +1.71
14 - 75 Baltimore, 47 Cleveland +1.643
16 - 41 Chicago B +1.636
17 - 90 Kansas City +1.62
18 - 62 Houston, 72 Pittsburgh, 64 Baltimore +1.57
21 - 97 New York G, 12 New England +1.56
23 - 89 Philadelphia, 05 Cincinnati, 55 Los Angeles, 09 Green Bay, 77 Baltimore, 11 Green Bay +1.50

#65 Bernard Brinker
Starter
Forum Visitors 152 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 02 February 2014 - 12:36 PM

Rupert Patrick, on 01 Feb 2014 - 8:26 PM, said:
I'll give an overview of how this thing works. My system (which I call the PPS or Playoff Prediction System) started out with over 120 different questions about each postseason game, such as "Did the team who rushed for more yards in the regular season win the postseason game in question?", "Did the team whose defense gave up fewer first downs rushing during the regular season win the game?" and "Did the home team win the game?" and "Did the team whose head coach had more years experience as a head coach than his opponent win the game?". All questions that can be answered before the game. Some of these questions were very strong indicators, others, not so much, and some were interconnected to other questions.

I kept track of how often the answer was yes, no, or a situation where the teams were tied i.e. they rushed for the same number of TD's during the regular season or had the same winning percentage. I then weeded these down to 46 questions, 15 offense, 15 defense, and 16 miscellaneous, seven of the miscellaneous which were net questions, such as "Did the team with the best net yards per play (offensive net yards per play minus defensive net yards per play) in the regular season win the postseason game?". I came up with a system for weighing each variable, so that each team that leads in each category (such as total rushing and passing plays on offense) gets a point value for leading the category. If you lead in the category, you get all the points in the category, like the Electoral College, and if the two teams have the same number of rushing attempts on offense, the split the total number of points in the category. The points values were pro-rated to a total of 999 and rounded off to whole numbers, and the team who gets 500 or more total points in the PPS is predicted to "win" the game. Running these questions on all postseason games since 1941, the PPS has picked the correct winner of all postseason games from 1941 to present (a total of 500 games) 69.6 percent of the time.

For Super Bowl XLVIII, Seattle has 510.5 points and Denver 488.5 points. The system takes into consideration winning percentage of opponents, that is a total of 8 points, and the two strongest ones are Home Field Advantage and better won loss record, each 156 points. It also looks at momentum, or which team is playing better as the season progresses, and which team won the previous meeting between these teams, and which teams was more successful the previous season, in addition to point differential and winning percentage against .500 or better teams in the regular system. It's got about everything I could possibly build into it except the kitchen sink. The strongest Offensive Factor is a thing I call Rating, which is (Points Scored^3)/(Yards rushing and passing combined^1.5)/(games played^1.5), using offensive regular season statistics; the team who leads in this particular category gets 36 points. The strongest defensive factor is actually Fewest Pass TD's allowed, which is 31 points.

The system is not 100 percent accurate, sometimes I disagree with the results, as last year it predicted a San Francisco win in the Super Bowl and I went against it and predicted a Baltimore victory. Some factors I have not found a way to quantify, such as the fact it was Ray Lewis's final game, and how does that affect his team. I do not consider injuries, and the system does not look at individual player match ups, or questions such as "How will team A's offensive line stack up against team B's defensive line?" I do not take into account how the teams played in previous postseason games (if any) during the season in question. These are the kinds of things that once I or somebody else figures out how to overcome, will make the system more accurate.

I've been working privately with this PPS system since 1986, and with my upcoming book which I should have finished later this year it will be released to the world, and at that time, it is hoped that others will look at it and come up with ways to improve it or things I may have missed. I do believe with some tweaking, a system of this kind could predict the winners of postseason games with 75 to 80 percent accuracy.

A 69% accuracy is very good but probably about as good as the system is going to get--it seems there is some kind of inherent randomness that prevents getting consistently much better. My understanding, and take all this with a grain of salt because I am not a big stats guy and never bet on games, is that the predicted favorite by the point spread, in the second half of the regular season, wins around 70% of the time. Most of the public predictors who do all the games do significantly worse--low 60% (this is straight up, not against the spread).

#66 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 02 February 2014 - 09:33 PM
Putrid Super Bowl thus far. Worse than Broncos-49ers and 49ers-Chargers.

(Posted immediately after Percy Harvin touchdown)

#67 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 02 February 2014 - 09:37 PM
JWL, on 02 Feb 2014 - 9:33 PM, said:
Putrid Super Bowl thus far. Worse than Broncos-49ers and 49ers-Chargers.

(Posted immediately after Percy Harvin touchdown)

The Broncos set the tone on the first play from scrimmage with the Safety.

At this point, this reminds me of Super Bowl XVIII with the favored Redskins being steamrolled by the Raiders.

#68 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:20 PM
Difference between this and SB XXIV and SB XXIX is that most didn't expect those games to be close.

What a letdown this ended up being after all the build up. Only suspense left was whether or not the Broncos would score and they just did as I was typing out this post. Well, not a letdown for everyone. Enjoy, Matt!

Quick thoughts:

-Manning hasn't played that well, but there's plenty of blame to go around for the Broncos (more on that below). The story of the game is clearly Seattle's D.

-Denver's offensive line got its' collective ass kicked.

-Percy Harvin being able to stay healthy for more than a couple of plays was a factor.

-Rupert, you're not alone. I've also been thinking about SB XVIII. Like this, the shock of that wasn't the Raiders winning, but how one-sided the game ended up being.

-I like John Fox. I don't think he's gotten enough general credit for his role in the Broncos going to the SB. That being said, I don't think I've ever seen a team look as poorly prepared for the SB as this Broncos team did and as the HC the buck stops with him. I actually think the tone was set from the beginning with Holiday foolishly running out the opening KO before the botched/early snap that resulted in a safety.

-Who do you all think will be MVP? Sure seems like it should be someone from Seattle's D. Hope they don't go the lazy route and give it to Wilson. I'll say Kam Chancellor.


#69 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:37 PM
Kam Chancellor is the MVP. I could see a case for Malcolm Smith. Percy Harvin has a slim chance. Anyone else would be wrong.

#70 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:37 PM
26554, on 02 Feb 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

-Rupert, you're not alone. I've also been thinking about SB XVIII. Like this, the shock of that wasn't the Raiders winning, but how one-sided the game ended up being.

-I like John Fox. I don't think he's gotten enough general credit for his role in the Broncos going to the SB. That being said, I don't think I've ever seen a team look as poorly prepared for the SB as this Broncos team did and as the HC the buck stops with him. I actually think the tone was set from the beginning with Holiday foolishly running out the opening KO before the botched/early snap that resulted in a safety.


The funny part about Super Bowl XVIII is that I was rooting strongly for the Redskins in the game, but was living in LA attending college which made me the only Redskins fan I knew. I studied the stats and thought the Redskins would handle the Raiders pretty easily, and it got ugly from the word go. As for your second comment about being poorly prepared for the Super Bowl, the Redskins in that game had an awful game plan and were poorly prepared, and the Raiders were well prepared and blew out Washington.

As far as the MVP, they're going to have to award it to a defensive player, perhaps Malcolm Smith, or maybe split the vote between Smith and Harvin and make both co-MVP's.

#71 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:42 PM
Rupert Patrick, on 02 Feb 2014 - 10:37 PM, said:

The funny part about Super Bowl XVIII is that I was rooting strongly for the Redskins in the game, but was living in LA attending college which made me the only Redskins fan I knew. I studied the stats and thought the Redskins would handle the Raiders pretty easily, and it got ugly from the word go. As for your second comment about being poorly prepared for the Super Bowl, the Redskins in that game had an awful game plan and were poorly prepared, and the Raiders were well prepared and blew out Washington.

As far as the MVP, they're going to have to award it to a defensive player, perhaps Malcolm Smith, or maybe split the vote between Smith and Harvin and make both co-MVP's.

You're right, that wasn't Gibbs' finest hour. From the time I first started watching/undestanding football, though (which was after that game), I'd have to rank this at or at least near the top.

#72 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:44 PM
Worst part of this is the nightmare that will be trying to avoid the "Peyton Manning is a choker" garbage on other internet forums, talk radio and on ESPN for at least another full year.

#73 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:45 PM
There has never been a final score of 43-8 in Pro Football history.


#74 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:48 PM
26554, on 02 Feb 2014 - 10:42 PM, said:

You're right, that wasn't Gibbs' finest hour. From the time I first started watching/undestanding football, though (which was after that game), I'd have to rank this at or at least near the top.

There hasn't been a blowout in the Super Bowl since, I guess, Super Bowl XXXV where the Ravens beat the Giants 31-7. As the 80's was the era of the Super Bowls that were blowouts, the last 15 years or so has been an era of generally really good Super Bowl games. We've been overdue for a Super Bowl blowout.

#75 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:57 PM
Interestingly, especially with all the pressure on Manning, there was only one sack in this game by either team (Chris Clemons) and it came late in the game. Think it's safe to say the Broncos missed Von Miller.

#76 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 02 February 2014 - 10:58 PM
Rupert Patrick, on 02 Feb 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

There hasn't been a blowout in the Super Bowl since, I guess, Super Bowl XXXV where the Ravens beat the Giants 31-7. As the 80's was the era of the Super Bowls that were blowouts, the last 15 years or so has been an era of generally really good Super Bowl games. We've been overdue for a Super Bowl blowout.

I'd classify the Tampa/Oakland SB as a blowout, but you're probably right that we were due.

#77 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 02 February 2014 - 11:05 PM
Jets cooties.

#78 3243
Starter
Forum Visitors 301 posts
Posted 02 February 2014 - 11:08 PM
JWL, on 02 Feb 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:
Worst part of this is the nightmare that will be trying to avoid the "Peyton Manning is a choker" garbage on other internet forums, talk radio and on ESPN for at least another full year.

That, and the fact the Broncos will probably never wear the orange jerseys again. They'll probably say those jerseys are cursed like the Cowboys' old blue jerseys.

#79 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 02 February 2014 - 11:09 PM
26554, on 02 Feb 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:
I'd classify the Tampa/Oakland SB as a blowout, but you're probably right that we were due.

I was right about the pick six, and once again, good defense beats good offense, and another big offense has gone down to a scrappy defense in the Super Bowl. I think my pregame analysis was pretty accurate, although I thought the Broncos would make it a game. While I didn't get the score right, I take solace in the fact that NOBODY predicted a 43-8 Seattle victory.

#80 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 02 February 2014 - 11:11 PM
Malcolm Smith is the MVP. Glad they didn't give it to Wilson, who had most of his success after the game was basically over.

Page 4 of 7
oldecapecod 11
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

Re: Super Bowl XLVIII

Post by oldecapecod11 »

ARCHIVE continued

Super Bowl XLVIII
Started by Rupert Patrick, Jan 19 2014 11:27 PM

Page 5 of 7

137 replies to this topic
#81 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 02 February 2014 - 11:18 PM
26554, on 02 Feb 2014 - 11:11 PM, said:
Malcolm Smith is the MVP. Glad they didn't give it to Wilson, who had most of his success after the game was basically over.
Yeah, that was cool. I thought Chancellor set the tone by bringing early lumber and then grabbing the first interception. Smith was also very deserving. Harvin was a distant third. No good argument could be made for anyone else.

#82 NWebster
Veteran
Forum Visitors 796 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Philadelphia, PA
Interests:Defensive FB Stats, Special Teams Performances, Heavy Metal Music, Fitness
Posted 02 February 2014 - 11:47 PM
JWL, on 02 Feb 2014 - 11:18 PM, said:
Yeah, that was cool. I thought Chancellor set the tone by bringing early lumber and then grabbing the first interception. Smith was also very deserving. Harvin was a distant third. No good argument could be made for anyone else.

Glad they stayed away from the default position of the winning teams' QB. That said probably one of least impressive performances by a game MVP. Good for Seattle, a great TEAM effort.

#83 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 02 February 2014 - 11:57 PM
NWebster, on 02 Feb 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:
Glad they stayed away from the default position of the winning teams' QB. That said probably one of least impressive performances by a game MVP. Good for Seattle, a great TEAM effort.

I would've gone with Chancellor, but I'm okay with Smith. 10 tackles, a fumble recovery and I'd imagine his int was deemed the bigger of two, although I think Cliff Avril deserves primary credit for that play happening.

#84 NWebster
Veteran
Forum Visitors 796 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Philadelphia, PA
Interests:Defensive FB Stats, Special Teams Performances, Heavy Metal Music, Fitness
Posted 03 February 2014 - 12:04 AM
26554, on 02 Feb 2014 - 11:57 PM, said:
I would've gone with Chancellor, but I'm okay with Smith. 10 tackles, a fumble recovery and I'd imagine his int was deemed the bigger of two, although I think Cliff Avril deserves primary credit for that play happening.

I thought Cam, like Ray Lewis (who did get the award in the Ravens first SB win), was more the tone setter. But it really was an overall dominating defensive performance. What the 'hawks can do putting numerous DE/Pass Rushers on the field ag the same time really resembles the Giants' D of the last decade or so which led to two improbable wins in the Super Bowl.

#85 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 12:35 AM
As a person who enjoyed seeing dominating teams and dominating performances before the salary cap era came about it was nice to see a Super Bowl like this once again.

Manning is a great qb (and possibly the best pocket passer of all time) however his style of play completely fell right into Seattle's hands. I really think that if a guy like Collin Kapernick was on the Broncos Denver would have stood a better chance of staying in this game if they benched Peyton and started the more mobile qb.

#86 NWebster
Veteran
Forum Visitors 796 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Philadelphia, PA
Interests:Defensive FB Stats, Special Teams Performances, Heavy Metal Music, Fitness
Posted 03 February 2014 - 12:48 AM
This doesn't happen every year, playoff/tournaments are like that, but I'm just happy they the beat team of the season won the Championship. Good for them, but the Giants were not the best team a few years ago - they won it on the field, so its all fair. But its nice to have little doubt, best Offense versus beat defense. Best in the AFC versus best in the NFC. A decisive victory where the refs or one or two odd bounces didn't make the difference. A very deserving champion. Not sure I LIKE them still, but they deserved this.

#87 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 12:58 AM
I actually think last year's Ravens team was more fluke-ish than either of those Giants teams. The Giants matched up well with the Patriots (in fairness, so did the Ravens) and also with that Packers team from two years ago.

#88 TouchdownTimmy
Starter
Forum Visitors 326 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Maryland
Interests:Almost anything to do with football and sports on the field. I am not big into celebrity or social media. I just like watching and talking about sports. Football is my game and I have been following since I was five back in 1971.
Posted 03 February 2014 - 01:01 AM
I thought that Seattle was the better team, but did not see this coming at all. This was an old fashioned, take behind the woodshed, butt whipping. And as a fan of defense and physical play I..........loved........every.........minute of it.

It was nice to see WDFOA alum Terry McCaulley ref his third Super Bowl as well.


#89 SixtiesFan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 524 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 01:19 AM
Rupert Patrick, on 02 Feb 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

There hasn't been a blowout in the Super Bowl since, I guess, Super Bowl XXXV where the Ravens beat the Giants 31-7. As the 80's was the era of the Super Bowls that were blowouts, the last 15 years or so has been an era of generally really good Super Bowl games. We've been overdue for a Super Bowl blowout.

For many years, the Super Bowl was usually a blowout. One team would come in flat, tight, or mistake-prone

#90 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 01:20 AM
Watching this Super Bowl has brought on the urge to pop Super Bowl XXIV into the dvd player and watch a bit of that one as well. Super Bowl blowouts can become pretty boring if they happen to often but one ever once in a while is a joy to witness.


#91 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 01:23 AM
SixtiesFan, on 03 Feb 2014 - 01:19 AM, said:

For many years, the Super Bowl was usually a blowout. One team would come in flat, tight, or mistake-prone

It wasn't that one team always came in flat but the era of all those blowouts came when the Bears, 49ers, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys either had very very good teams and sometimes great teams. While at the same time nobody in the AFC during that era really could be considered that great.

I think for this particular Super Bowl Seattle just matched up tremondously well against Manning.

#92 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 03 February 2014 - 01:26 AM
lastcat3, on 03 Feb 2014 - 01:20 AM, said:
Watching this Super Bowl has brought on the urge to pop Super Bowl XXIV into the dvd player and watch a bit of that one as well. Super Bowl blowouts can become pretty boring if they happen to often but one ever once in a while is a joy to witness.


To each their own. Unless it was watching my favorite team do it (and of course this would never happen in the Super Bowl as my team has been banned by the football gods), I find little joy in watching blowouts.
Even watching a hated team get blown out is not really fun. I stopped watching the final Dan Marino game before it was over. I am pretty sure I went to Wendy's during the 3rd quarter. It was fun that the Dolphins lost 62-7 but it was not interesting to watch.

#93 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 03 February 2014 - 03:13 AM
26554, on 02 Feb 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:
Well, not a letdown for everyone. Enjoy, Matt!
-Who do you all think will be MVP? Sure seems like it should be someone from Seattle's D. Hope they don't go the lazy route and give it to Wilson. I'll say Kam Chancellor.
Thanks, man. Still enjoying but taking a sec to see what everyone here is saying.

We got a champion in Seattle, can't believe it. Literally first piece of actual clothing after I was born was a Largent 'jersey', can truly say I've been a lifelong fan of one team, and now having this group of players, and 43-8! It's amazing.

Speaking of jerseys, watched the game wearing an authentic jersey of my current favorite player, Kam Chancellor. Had him as my SB MVP - at least 1a - for the same reasons others have said; set the tone, the interception, etc ... Really wanted my guy to be on the SB MVP list and be a part of history, would have been cool. 1b was of course Malcolm Smith, so it's not like they got it wrong, at all (obviously a fan of Wilson but as with others, I'm glad for once they didn't vote lazy) ... Nice that he goes down in the history books, always would be remembered by Seahawks fans of course for historic/memorable plays in the NFC Championship and Super Bowl, but now he's a part of history in a way that years from now when everyday football fans go through the SB MVP list, they'll have to look it up and find out who he is. Wanted it for Kam, but Smith is a positive outcome.

Though profits are important, the sport must take precedence over the business

#94 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 03:46 AM
Hey Reaser how long are many of these players Seattle has under contract? I would think it would be difficult to resign a lot of them (especially on defense) now that they have won a Super Bowl.

They remind me a lot of the early '90's Cowboys where they had a great deal of depth that was still young and were all set up to be really really good for many years to come. Of course we all know that the salary cap came around and took away much of Dallas's depth and I wonder if the same thing might happen to Seattle over the course of the next couple/few seasons..

#95 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 03 February 2014 - 04:45 AM
lastcat3, on 03 Feb 2014 - 03:46 AM, said:
Hey Reaser how long are many of these players Seattle has under contract? I would think it would be difficult to resign a lot of them (especially on defense) now that they have won a Super Bowl.

They remind me a lot of the early '90's Cowboys where they had a great deal of depth that was still young and were all set up to be really really good for many years to come. Of course we all know that the salary cap came around and took away much of Dallas's depth and I wonder if the same thing might happen to Seattle over the course of the next couple/few seasons..
Well of course the 'slotted' rookie deals have helped Seattle give out deals like Harvin's. I'm not worried about losing a lot of players though, won't be adding big money FA's, but certainly can keep the core guys. A lot will depend on when Wilson gets paid, but I don't see him as the type to demand being the highest paid QB or being like a Joe Flacco. He seems a lot more interested in winning, legacy and such, than 'needing' a couple extra millions. We'll see but I feel confident in my viewpoint there. The rest comes down to drafting and rookie FA's which they're putting together quite the resume on that front. Along with the short-term contracts for FA's who don't get the offers they thought they were going to get, and this is where I think Seattle will continue to succeed. Was the thought pre-SB win and now the SB will only help, but Seattle is a place players want to go.

We'll have to see how FA continues to play out but the big FA deals really weren't there for players this season, if that continues there will be more Michael Bennett types, and with not only having a winning team, but being a place players want to come play (freedom to be one's self, fan support, etc .. ) then I suspect Seattle will have an edge there, not just on players wanting to come here, but that the FO is clearly among the best in the league and will bring who they want and the 'right' players here. Lot of fill-in types I suspect over the next couple years, who then go on to get a deal somewhere else but are easily replaced by our GM's great eye for talent and the widening choices of players that Seattle will have.

That said, I don't want to get greedy, I'm still in shock about winning a Super Bowl. Wasn't alive for the Sonics championship and they're obviously gone now, and we're the type of city that celebrates the '95 Mariners season like I imagine other cities celebrate actual championship winning seasons (and ugh, the M's are and have been terrible for years) ... So like I said, don't want to get greedy and start talking dynasty or anything, I'll definitely take this one. I do think we'll be "in the running" for at least the next couple years though, and that's something to be excited about.

Though profits are important, the sport must take precedence over the business

#96 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 03 February 2014 - 08:05 AM
Rupert Patrick, on 02 Feb 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

I agree. They were an outstanding defense, but not in the sense of the 69-71 Vikings, 63 Bears, 74-76 Steelers, 85 Bears or 00 Ravens. Some of these teams were perceived as having great offenses because they were at or near the top of the league in points scored, but it was more a function of turnovers returned for TD's or turnovers recovered deep in enemy territory that set up a lot of short scoring drives.

I have compiled a list of the top takeover ratios (per game) from 1941 to 2013. The Seahawks had a ratio of +20, or 1.25 a game, which would put them in the top 50 all time. I just have this data for postseason teams, but I would be very surprised if there was a team with a turnover ratio of +1.5 per game or higher and not in the postseason.

1 - 83 Redskins +2.69
2 - 58 Baltimore +2.5
3 - 63 Chicago +2.21
4 - 41 Green Bay +2.18
5 - 59 Baltimore +2.17
6 - 44 New York G +2.1
7 - 50 New York G +2
8 - 62 Green Bay, 46 Cleveland +1.92
10 - 50 Cleveland +1.83
11 - 10 New England and 11 San Francisco +1.75
13 - 65 Green Bay +1.71
14 - 75 Baltimore, 47 Cleveland +1.643
16 - 41 Chicago B +1.636
17 - 90 Kansas City +1.62
18 - 62 Houston, 72 Pittsburgh, 64 Baltimore +1.57
21 - 97 New York G, 12 New England +1.56
23 - 89 Philadelphia, 05 Cincinnati, 55 Los Angeles, 09 Green Bay, 77 Baltimore, 11 Green Bay +1.50
I will reexamine my comment of the other day. The '13 Seahawks might be right there with the '02 Buccaneers and '00 Ravens. One great game in the Super Bowl can sway things. I did not foresee a dismantling. I thought each team would be in the 20s.

#97 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 03 February 2014 - 09:00 AM
JWL, on 03 Feb 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:
I will reexamine my comment of the other day. The '13 Seahawks might be right there with the '02 Buccaneers and '00 Ravens. One great game in the Super Bowl can sway things. I did not foresee a dismantling. I thought each team would be in the 20s.

I do agree that one game can sway things, and the fact that this was the first massive Super Bowl blowout in 20 years (winning by 30 points or more and the game was settled by halftime), and they totally shut down the most prolific offense in NFL history, the Seahawks will probably be regarded as the best defense since the 2002 Bucs. I can live with that.


#98 97Den98
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,056 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 09:49 AM
Reaser, on 03 Feb 2014 - 04:45 AM, said:
Well of course the 'slotted' rookie deals have helped Seattle give out deals like Harvin's. I'm not worried about losing a lot of players though, won't be adding big money FA's, but certainly can keep the core guys. A lot will depend on when Wilson gets paid, but I don't see him as the type to demand being the highest paid QB or being like a Joe Flacco. He seems a lot more interested in winning, legacy and such, than 'needing' a couple extra millions. We'll see but I feel confident in my viewpoint there. The rest comes down to drafting and rookie FA's which they're putting together quite the resume on that front. Along with the short-term contracts for FA's who don't get the offers they thought they were going to get, and this is where I think Seattle will continue to succeed. Was the thought pre-SB win and now the SB will only help, but Seattle is a place players want to go.

We'll have to see how FA continues to play out but the big FA deals really weren't there for players this season, if that continues there will be more Michael Bennett types, and with not only having a winning team, but being a place players want to come play (freedom to be one's self, fan support, etc .. ) then I suspect Seattle will have an edge there, not just on players wanting to come here, but that the FO is clearly among the best in the league and will bring who they want and the 'right' players here. Lot of fill-in types I suspect over the next couple years, who then go on to get a deal somewhere else but are easily replaced by our GM's great eye for talent and the widening choices of players that Seattle will have.

That said, I don't want to get greedy, I'm still in shock about winning a Super Bowl. Wasn't alive for the Sonics championship and they're obviously gone now, and we're the type of city that celebrates the '95 Mariners season like I imagine other cities celebrate actual championship winning seasons (and ugh, the M's are and have been terrible for years) ... So like I said, don't want to get greedy and start talking dynasty or anything, I'll definitely take this one. I do think we'll be "in the running" for at least the next couple years though, and that's something to be excited about.

Yeah, man. You guys deserved it. I don't know what else to say, except see you next season.

#99 SixtiesFan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 524 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 10:25 AM
lastcat3, on 03 Feb 2014 - 01:23 AM, said:

It wasn't that one team always came in flat but the era of all those blowouts came when the Bears, 49ers, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys either had very very good teams and sometimes great teams. While at the same time nobody in the AFC during that era really could be considered that great.

I think for this particular Super Bowl Seattle just matched up tremondously well against Manning.

And what were the reasons for blowouts in (for example) Super Bowls VI, XV, XVIII? Where the Raiders 29 points better than the Redskins going into Super Bowl XVIII? I've read several times that Vermeil had the Eagles "too tight" before Super Bowl XV.

#100 conace21
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,293 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 10:58 AM
I am also in shock. I kept telling myself before the game that "In the Super Bowl, great defense trumps great offense," Except when it doesn't, like SB XXIV, where Den had allowed the fewest points in the AFC.

I was a little surprised Malcolm Smith got the MVP award. His INT was not quite as easy as either of Larry Brown's, but they were close. Avril was the hero of that play. But Smith recovered a fumble, and tied for the team lead with 10 tackles, so I guess he's a worthy choice as any. This was a true TEAM defense. I'm just glad they didn't give the MVP award to Wilson. He put up his more than half his numbers (9 completions for about 110 yards and 2 TD's) AFTER Seattle was up 29-0.

Page 5 of 7

oldecapecod 11





Professional Football Researchers Association ? Professional Football Researchers Association ? Football Talk Privacy Policy Terms of Service ·
Change Theme Mark Community Read Help
Community Forum Software by IP.Board 3.4.4
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

Re: Super Bowl XLVIII

Post by oldecapecod11 »

ARCHIVE continued

Super Bowl XLVIII
Started by Rupert Patrick, Jan 19 2014 11:27 PM

Page 6 of 7

137 replies to this topic
#101 Bryan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 662 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 01:42 PM
SixtiesFan, on 03 Feb 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

And what were the reasons for blowouts in (for example) Super Bowls VI, XV, XVIII? Where the Raiders 29 points better than the Redskins going into Super Bowl XVIII? I've read several times that Vermeil had the Eagles "too tight" before Super Bowl XV.

The 1971 Cowboys were immensely talented and experienced. I don't think their blowout against the Dolphins was all that surprising. The 1983 Raiders were much more talented than the Redskins, especially on defense. They almost beat the Redskins in Washington during the year without Marcus Allen and Mike Haynes, and those two players were big factors in the SB. As for SB XV, perhaps the Raiders had more big game experience than the Eagles? I know they pass-protected much better in the SB than they did in their regular season loss to the Eagles.

#102 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors 360 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 02:13 PM
Now it snows. They could have blamed the slaughter on the snow yesterday...

#103 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors 360 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 02:13 PM
Now it snows. They could have blamed the slaughter on the snow yesterday...

#104 evan
Veteran
PFRA Member 779 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 03 February 2014 - 03:28 PM
And so Pete Carroll becomes the fourth former Vikings assistant coach to win a Super Bowl in the last 14 years, joining Brian Billick, Tony Dungy and Mike Tomlin. Any other Vikings fans feel a particular sting over that? Just another inglorious chapter in our Super Bowl tome of frustration.

#105 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 03 February 2014 - 03:50 PM
evan, on 03 Feb 2014 - 3:28 PM, said:
And so Pete Carroll becomes the fourth former Vikings assistant coach to win a Super Bowl in the last 14 years, joining Brian Billick, Tony Dungy and Mike Tomlin. Any other Vikings fans feel a particular sting over that? Just another inglorious chapter in our Super Bowl tome of frustration.

Carroll was considered an immature goofball clown when he coached the Jets. He was Rex Ryan without a plus .500 record, basically.

I have seen almost all the 32 teams in the Super Bowl except for my favorite team and just a few others.

It is getting ridiculous.

#106 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 05:15 PM
Bryan, on 03 Feb 2014 - 1:42 PM, said:

The 1971 Cowboys were immensely talented and experienced. I don't think their blowout against the Dolphins was all that surprising. The 1983 Raiders were much more talented than the Redskins, especially on defense. They almost beat the Redskins in Washington during the year without Marcus Allen and Mike Haynes, and those two players were big factors in the SB. As for SB XV, perhaps the Raiders had more big game experience than the Eagles? I know they pass-protected much better in the SB than they did in their regular season loss to the Eagles.

In The Ultimate Super Book, Bill Bergey says (paraphrasing) that the Eagles emotional tank was on empty after beating the Cowboys and they weren't able to refuel before facing the Raiders. Is it possible something similar happened to this Broncos team after beating the Patriots?

Some more quick thoughts:

*I hate to keep dumping on John Fox but, in addition to the team not looking ready to play, it seemed like they collectively quit shortly after Harvin's kickoff return.

*Even more so than the botched/early snap throwing the Broncos off, I think the crowd being as loud as it was really threw them. Manuel Ramirez said as much after the game.

*In addition to Miller, the absence of Ryan Clady and Chris Harris really showed up in this one. Champ Bailey looked like he was 70 on that early deep play to Doug Baldwin. I think the Broncos still lose even those three all play, but you'd think it would've at least been a little more competitive.

*Trindon Holiday was awful. Ran out two kicks that he shouldn't have and nearly fumbled a third.

*Very quiet game overall for Richard Sherman until he got injured, but of course that isn't a bad thing for a cornerback.

*The Broncos became the first team not record a takeaway in three post season games. 7 previous teams had made it through two post season games without recording one.

#107 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 05:47 PM
Found this in the comments section at Football Outsiders -

"I was at the game and like most everyone (esp Bronco fans) was completely disappointed. My on-site observations...
1. Denver seemed very uptight to start game. Manning probably threw 100 warm up passes between two warm up sessions. Wilson at the most threw half of that. Carol was joking around with the team, while the Broncos coaches looked like they were hanging out with their in-laws.
2. Not prepared for the noise??? Ramirez said crowd noise caused the initial fumble. Anyone that was in NYC observed that Seattle fans significantly outnumbered Denver's and to not be prepared was inexcusable.
3. It seemed like Seattle cracked the code to Peyton's audibles. Not only was SEA more physical, but Watching the game live, there was a TB-OAK vibe. Maybe they figured it out on their own, or got help from another team/coach (Bellichick?), but they definitely were prepared as he audibled. Denver never adjusted.
4. How can Denver not be pre-pared for the jet sweep and boot-leg plays? They definitely saw something when Ayers was at RDE because they totally exploited it.
In hindsight, it's crazy that Denver was favored in this game, not only because Seattle was better and more balanced, but Denver had so many injuries to key players. The negative effects due to the absence of Miller and esp Clady really showed in this game, although it probably wouldn't have the results.
Next year Denver will be better. Consider what the buzz would be if you heard that Denver had signed: a top 3 LT, a top 5 overall defensive player, & a top 5 slot corner... Without signing a FA, Denver will get all of these next year with Clady, Miller and Harris. Hopefully Denver can stay healthy and composed enough to play Seattle in the SB next year. A Seattle fan joked to me, "if we didn'tbeat Denver w/o Clady, Miller and Harris then we weren't going to win it with this team." Seattle has a window (that begins to close when they have to pay Wilson) where they can be a mini-dynasty.
Most of the Seattle fans were pretty cool, considering Denver received such an ass kicking, so props to them"

#108 Chrisskreager
Starter
Forum Visitors 275 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 03 February 2014 - 06:12 PM
Seattle is the most polarizing SB champ since 2000 Ravens.

They are brash and yap yap yap, but walk the walk.

Lot of teams will be eager to try and silence them next year.

#109 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 08:54 PM
26554, on 03 Feb 2014 - 5:47 PM, said:

Next year Denver will be better. Consider what the buzz would be if you heard that Denver had signed: a top 3 LT, a top 5 overall defensive player, & a top 5 slot corner... Without signing a FA, Denver will get all of these next year with Clady, Miller and Harris. Hopefully Denver can stay healthy and composed enough to play Seattle in the SB next year. A Seattle fan joked to me, "if we didn'tbeat Denver w/o Clady, Miller and Harris then we weren't going to win it with this team." Seattle has a window (that begins to close when they have to pay Wilson) where they can be a mini-dynasty.
Most of the Seattle fans were pretty cool, considering Denver received such an ass kicking, so props to them"

Unfortunately unless all of Seattle's defensive players contracts are up and they all leave for other teams Seattle will still have a very similar defense next year. And that defense will once again kick the crap out of a Peyton Manning who isn't mobile enough to escape the pressure.

#110 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 09:00 PM
Chrisskreager, on 03 Feb 2014 - 6:12 PM, said:
Seattle is the most polarizing SB champ since 2000 Ravens.

They are brash and yap yap yap, but walk the walk.

Lot of teams will be eager to try and silence them next year.

Seattle is without a doubt the most entertaining team to watch in the nfl. Watching their games is almost like watching a college game with the way their fans get behind them and the players truly seem to enjoy playing for them. Pete Carroll has definitely brought the exuberance of college football to the Seattle franchise.

#111 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 03 February 2014 - 09:44 PM
26554, on 03 Feb 2014 - 5:47 PM, said:
Found this in the comments section at Football Outsiders -

Next year Denver will be better. Consider what the buzz would be if you heard that Denver had signed: a top 3 LT, a top 5 overall defensive player, & a top 5 slot corner... Without signing a FA, Denver will get all of these next year with Clady, Miller and Harris. Hopefully Denver can stay healthy and composed enough to play Seattle in the SB next year. A Seattle fan joked to me, "if we didn'tbeat Denver w/o Clady, Miller and Harris then we weren't going to win it with this team." Seattle has a window (that begins to close when they have to pay Wilson) where they can be a mini-dynasty.
Most of the Seattle fans were pretty cool, considering Denver received such an ass kicking, so props to them"

I think there's a 50-50 chance that the Broncos do not recover from this loss and finish below .500 next season, it won't be a total collapse like the Texans, but 7-9 or so. If they had lost to Seattle by a FG, it would not have been a big deal, but this team was humiliated to the core, and I think it may affect the confidence of many of the Denver players next season.

It is possible that Seattle will win another Super Bowl in the next 2-3 years, but they don't strike me as a particularly dominant team that will win back to back Super Bowls like the Patriots, Steelers, 49ers. I doubt they will repeat in 2014. It's hard to keep a team focused after winning their first Super Bowl; the Broncos did it in 1998 because they had John Elway and Terrell Davis and it was pretty much a given that it was going to be Elway's final season, but I don't think the Seahawks have the talent of the Broncos back to back winners. The Pats were able to repeat in 2003-2004, but they had already won in 2001 and after winning again in 2003 they were able to refocus and repeat in 2004, plus they had Belichick and Tom Brady.

#112 SixtiesFan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 524 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 09:54 PM
Bryan, on 03 Feb 2014 - 1:42 PM, said:

The 1971 Cowboys were immensely talented and experienced. I don't think their blowout against the Dolphins was all that surprising. The 1983 Raiders were much more talented than the Redskins, especially on defense. They almost beat the Redskins in Washington during the year without Marcus Allen and Mike Haynes, and those two players were big factors in the SB. As for SB XV, perhaps the Raiders had more big game experience than the Eagles? I know they pass-protected much better in the SB than they did in their regular season loss to the Eagles.

Which doesn't refute my previous point that blowouts result in Super Bowls when teams are off their game for one reason or another. Wasn't Vermeil's having the Eagles "too tight" a reason the Raiders "pass-protected much better in the SB than they did in their regular season loss to the Eagles?"

#113 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 03 February 2014 - 10:03 PM
That is not a bad take, Rupert. Problem is, other than 2001 (and 2011 which comes with an asterisk), Peyton Manning teams don't collapse to below .500. Bad Manning teams only drop down to 10-6.

In August I thought there were six teams that could win the Super Bowl- ATL, NO, SF, SEA, CIN, DEN. I could not make a case for anyone else. Usually, you can make a case for about a dozen teams a year. 2013 was like what the 1970s must have been as far as preseason prognosticationing. Of course, my pick (ATL vs CIN) turned out to be the worst possible one. Those six teams could all be good again. The Falcons had a complete throwaway garbage season. I expect a big rebound in 2014.

2014 will be a return to normalcy. I can already envision August and me coming up with legit reasons why a dozen or so teams could win Super Bowl 49.

#114 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 10:39 PM
SixtiesFan, on 03 Feb 2014 - 9:54 PM, said:

Which doesn't refute my previous point that blowouts result in Super Bowls when teams are off their game for one reason or another. Wasn't Vermeil's having the Eagles "too tight" a reason the Raiders "pass-protected much better in the SB than they did in their regular season loss to the Eagles?"

SixtiesFan you can try to come up with all the excuses you want but 9 times out of 10 when one team blows out another team it isn't because the other team was simply off their game. It is because the other team simply isn't as good.

In regards to the 1980 Eagles as good as they may have seemed that particular season they really were just a hear today gone tomorrow type of team. They had some good seasons in 1979 and '81 but did very little once they got into the playoffs and then fell off the mountain in '82 and did not get good again until the late '80's when Cunningham came of age and Ryan built up the defense.

The Raiders on the other hand were good all throughout the '70's and likely would have gotten to more Super Bowls if the Steelers didn't have their dynasty steamrolling people at the same time. And they stayed good up through the early '80's and proved it by finishing 8-1 in '82 and winning the Super Bowl again in '83.

#115 TouchdownTimmy
Starter
Forum Visitors 326 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Maryland
Interests:Almost anything to do with football and sports on the field. I am not big into celebrity or social media. I just like watching and talking about sports. Football is my game and I have been following since I was five back in 1971.
Posted 03 February 2014 - 10:44 PM
This game reminded me a lot of the 2004 BCS championship game when Pete Carroll coached USC against Oklahoma. Though the Sooners scored first, SC scored 28 unanswered points, 24 in the second quarter, and led 38-10 at halftime. SC led by 45 points in the fourth quarter. The final score was 55-19. The Trojans were better than the Sooners in every phase of the game and left no doubt.

Just as the Seahawks did Sunday.

#116 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 03 February 2014 - 10:58 PM
To change the subject just a little bit for a second I'm beginning to think eventually it might be a good idea to drop the roman numerals with the Super Bowl. It was cool when it was just I, V, and X. But now that they are getting into L's and all that junk it is getting to be too much. When I'm an old old old man (if I live to be that old) they will be getting into C's. In a hundred years we will have Super Bowl CXLVIV.

#117 TouchdownTimmy
Starter
Forum Visitors 326 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Maryland
Interests:Almost anything to do with football and sports on the field. I am not big into celebrity or social media. I just like watching and talking about sports. Football is my game and I have been following since I was five back in 1971.
Posted 03 February 2014 - 11:31 PM
Agreed.

Someone may have already mentioned this, but I think it's neat that the Seahawks first post season victory came against the Broncos 30 years ago and now they get their first Super Bowl victory against the same franchise.

#118 SixtiesFan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 524 posts
Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:40 AM
lastcat3, on 03 Feb 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

SixtiesFan you can try to come up with all the excuses you want but 9 times out of 10 when one team blows out another team it isn't because the other team was simply off their game. It is because the other team simply isn't as good.

In regards to the 1980 Eagles as good as they may have seemed that particular season they really were just a hear today gone tomorrow type of team. They had some good seasons in 1979 and '81 but did very little once they got into the playoffs and then fell off the mountain in '82 and did not get good again until the late '80's when Cunningham came of age and Ryan built up the defense.

The Raiders on the other hand were good all throughout the '70's and likely would have gotten to more Super Bowls if the Steelers didn't have their dynasty steamrolling people at the same time. And they stayed good up through the early '80's and proved it by finishing 8-1 in '82 and winning the Super Bowl again in '83.

You can come up with all the excuses you want to, but how did the Eagles beat the Raiders 10-7 late in the 1980 regular season? How did the 1960 Eagles beat Lombardi's Packers in the NFL Championship Game? In case you don't know pro football history, the 1960 Eagles could be called a "here today, gone tomorrow type of team." The Packers were "good through 1967" and won the first two Super Bowls while the Eagles went in the other direction. The Eagles still defeated the Packers 17-13 on December 26, 1960.

I think the Raiders WERE a better team than the Eagles in 1980, but the Eagles could have made it closer with a better performance in Super Bowl XV.

#119 26554
Pro Bowler
Forum Visitors 1,163 posts
Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:45 AM
One big thing to keep in mind when talking about the chances of the Seahawks repeating - They still play in the NFC West.

I think there's some issues with Kaepernick that need work but, regardless, I don't see the 49ers falling apart overnight. While I think they're a little 'smoke and mirrors' (I don't see them going much/any further with Palmer at QB), the Cardinals won 10 games and have put together a very nice D of their own. And the Rams have shown improvement under Fisher and have the #2 overall pick in the upcoming draft. Big ? there is Bradford.

#120 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 04 February 2014 - 01:12 AM
SixtiesFan, on 04 Feb 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:

You can come up with all the excuses you want to, but how did the Eagles beat the Raiders 10-7 late in the 1980 regular season? How did the 1960 Eagles beat Lombardi's Packers in the NFL Championship Game? In case you don't know pro football history, the 1960 Eagles could be called a "here today, gone tomorrow type of team." The Packers were "good through 1967" and won the first two Super Bowls while the Eagles went in the other direction. The Eagles still defeated the Packers 17-13 on December 26, 1960.

I think the Raiders WERE a better team than the Eagles in 1980, but the Eagles could have made it closer with a better performance in Super Bowl XV.

The Raiders lost by three points in a game played in Philadelphia. In regards to the Packers/Eagles game the Packers were still a very young team on the rise in 1960. 1960 was probably one of their worst teams until 1968.

Page 6 of 7
oldecapecod 11
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

Re: Super Bowl XLVIII

Post by oldecapecod11 »

ARCHIVE continued

oldecapecod 11

Super Bowl XLVIII
Started by Rupert Patrick, Jan 19 2014 11:27 PM

Page 7 of 7

137 replies to this topic

#121 Bryan
Veteran
Forum Visitors 662 posts
Posted 04 February 2014 - 08:56 AM

SixtiesFan, on 03 Feb 2014 - 9:54 PM, said:
Which doesn't refute my previous point that blowouts result in Super Bowls when teams are off their game for one reason or another. Wasn't Vermeil's having the Eagles "too tight" a reason the Raiders "pass-protected much better in the SB than they did in their regular season loss to the Eagles?"

You seem to have ignored your previous mention of SBs VI and XVIII, and now are focusing on SB XV. I think to rationalize a SB blowout by saying one team was "off their game" kind of minimizes the fact that perhaps the other team was more talented/experienced/fundamentally sound. One of the simplest things to do is look at which players are playing in the Super Bowl. Usually the team with better players ends up winning. I had this conversation before on this forum, so I will just summarize it by saying the 1980 Eagles were a great overachieving team on both offense and defense. Ron Jaworski had a career year in 1980. The Eagles defense didn't excelled by avoiding mistakes with experienced players like Herm Edwards and John Bunting. But I wouldn't say the 1980 Eagles were vastly talented.

In the 1983 regular season Raiders-Redskins matchup, not only were the Raiders missing Marcus Allen, but the LCBs in that game were Ted Watts for the Raiders and Vernon Dean for the Redskins. Fast forward to the Super Bowl, and now its Mike Haynes for the Raiders and Anthony Washington for the Redskins. Don't you think that the talent level (or lack thereof) of the players on the field might be a reason for an outcome instead of some nebulous "well, the Redskins were off their game" type of "analysis"?

Bud Grant was criticized in SB IX for having his offense go strongside all game...but due to injuries the Vikings had a guard trying to play LT (Goodrum) and a backup starting at LG (Maurer). I don't know what people expected Grant to do in that situation...running and passing behind Ed White and Ron Yary seemed logical to me, because the players on the left side of Minnesota's OL weren't any good.

Joe Namath was criticized when he said there were QBs in the AFL that were better than Earl Morrall, but in retrospect he was correct (except for his inclusion of Babe Parilli). The Jets beat the Colts in SB III because they had better players, IMO.

Sorry for being all over the place, and I do agree with you in that to some degree, there are factors other than talent when it comes to determining the winner of the Super Bowl. But would also say that the team with better players will win a vast majority of the Super Bowls. I would guess that the blowouts happen when a superior team has 2 weeks to prepare against an inferior team.

#122 NWebster
Veteran
Forum Visitors 796 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Philadelphia, PA
Interests:Defensive FB Stats, Special Teams Performances, Heavy Metal Music, Fitness
Posted 04 February 2014 - 09:09 AM
lastcat3, on 03 Feb 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:
SixtiesFan you can try to come up with all the excuses you want but 9 times out of 10 when one team blows out another team it isn't because the other team was simply off their game. It is because the other team simply isn't as good.

In regards to the 1980 Eagles as good as they may have seemed that particular season they really were just a hear today gone tomorrow type of team. They had some good seasons in 1979 and '81 but did very little once they got into the playoffs and then fell off the mountain in '82 and did not get good again until the late '80's when Cunningham came of age and Ryan built up the defense .

To lazy to dig up the specifics but the data tell us that a team that blow another team out wins something less than 60% of rematches the same season. I do think the Seahawks are better, but I don't think its a 9-10. So much more luck to this game than we ever want to admit. I'm a little young for it but I know of specific interviews in both baseball and football from the 50's where you'll hear guys quoted as "that's the way the ball bounces". I don't think todays culture allows for that, but sometimes that's the case. Didn't see all there games (7-8 maybe) but that's the best I saw the Hawks play, what if they'd played average for them? Saw the Broncos probably 10 games and that the worst display I saw, what if they'd played average? A bounce here and there, all kinds of things can happen.

The '80 Eagles looked tight, I always figured they disappeared because of age at key leadership positions on D (Humphrey and Bergey were productive for the last time ever that year) and on the O Line. The Raiders were better in my mind, but the Eagles probably could've made a better showing of it.

As for Sunday, does anyone have at their fingertips the winning percentage of a team that throws a pick 6 and gives up a return TD - I think its gotta be extremely low?

#123 Bernard Brinker
Starter
Forum Visitors 152 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 04 February 2014 - 10:22 AM
Put me down for the "shit happens" school of thought. In complete agreement with NWebster's comments on luck. A one game sample has limited meaning, certainly not as much as all the season's previous games combined. Never let the tail wag the dog (that is, the SB is the tail and the SB too often causes a loss in perspective).

#124 rhickok1109
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,282 posts
Gender:Male
Location:New Bedford, MA
Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:04 PM

Bernard Brinker, on 04 Feb 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:
Put me down for the "shit happens" school of thought. In complete agreement with NWebster's comments on luck. A one game sample has limited meaning, certainly not as much as all the season's previous games combined. Never let the tail wag the dog (that is, the SB is the tail and the SB too often causes a loss in perspective).
1940 regular season: Washington 7, Chicago Bears 3
1940 championship game: Chicago Bears 73, Washington 0

Did the Bears miraculously improve by 77 points in three weeks?

#125 Bob Gill
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,200 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 04 February 2014 - 03:32 PM
Great point about the 73-0 game. Baugh couldn't win the big ones either.

That game is also the source of my favorite football quote ever.

#126 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 04 February 2014 - 04:03 PM
Bob Gill, on 04 Feb 2014 - 3:32 PM, said:
Great point about the 73-0 game. Baugh couldn't win the big ones either.

That game is also the source of my favorite football quote ever.
"73-7" . . .

#127 TouchdownTimmy
Starter
Forum Visitors 326 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Maryland
Interests:Almost anything to do with football and sports on the field. I am not big into celebrity or social media. I just like watching and talking about sports. Football is my game and I have been following since I was five back in 1971.
Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:35 PM
This school of thought seems to only happen to AFC teams. The NFC champion has scored 40 or more points in the Super Bowl seven times. The '85 Bears (46), '87 Redskins (42), '89 Niners (55), '92 Cowboys (52), '94 Niners (49), '02 Bucs (48) and '13 Seahawks (43).

The AFC has yet to score 40 points in a Super Bowl. The most points scored by them is 38 ('83 Raiders who probably could have scored more)

#128 Bob Gill
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 1,200 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:49 PM
>"73-7" . . .

Yep, that's the one. But I prefer the version where he says 73-6. I like the assumption that they would've missed the extra point.

#129 Rupert Patrick
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member 2,442 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Upstate SC
Posted 04 February 2014 - 08:28 PM
TouchdownTimmy, on 04 Feb 2014 - 6:35 PM, said:
This school of thought seems to only happen to AFC teams. The NFC champion has scored 40 or more points in the Super Bowl seven times. The '85 Bears (46), '87 Redskins (42), '89 Niners (55), '92 Cowboys (52), '94 Niners (49), '02 Bucs (48) and '13 Seahawks (43).

The AFC has yet to score 40 points in a Super Bowl. The most points scored by them is 38 ('83 Raiders who probably could have scored more)

And the Seahawks could have just have easily scored TD's on those two early FG's, which could have made it 51-8.


#130 Chrisskreager
Starter
Forum Visitors 275 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 05 February 2014 - 03:15 AM
Seahawks wouldn't know class if it bit them in the you-know-what.

Outside of Russell Wilson, I so badly want to see someone shut up these yapping, arrogant Seahawks.

#131 Bernard Brinker
Starter
Forum Visitors 152 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 05 February 2014 - 11:47 AM

Chrisskreager, on 05 Feb 2014 - 03:15 AM, said:
Seahawks wouldn't know class if it bit them in the you-know-what.

Outside of Russell Wilson, I so badly want to see someone shut up these yapping, arrogant Seahawks.

There have always been world class trash talkers. David Jones was a fabulous trash talker; from what I gather most at this site love the Deacon.

Is there more trash talking now than in previous era's----Yes. I suspect the cause is as much due to the increased amount of media coverage as any change in personality type playing in the NFL.

Maybe the problem isn't the quantity of trash talking now days but the quality. Are there degrees of trash talking, lines that were not crossed before but are routinely now? Not sure.

In regards to Russell Wilson---there has also been a proliferation of Jesus/Christian talking in this era. Rather than being seen as a mark of integrity or quality, it could be seen as mere pandering (which is neither inspiring nor meritorious.

#132 NWebster
Veteran
Forum Visitors 796 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Philadelphia, PA
Interests:Defensive FB Stats, Special Teams Performances, Heavy Metal Music, Fitness
Posted 05 February 2014 - 09:28 PM
Bernard Brinker, on 05 Feb 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:
There have always been world class trash talkers. David Jones was a fabulous trash talker; from what I gather most at this site love the Deacon.

Is there more trash talking now than in previous era's----Yes. I suspect the cause is as much due to the increased amount of media coverage as any change in personality type playing in the NFL.

Maybe the problem isn't the quantity of trash talking now days but the quality. Are there degrees of trash talking, lines that were not crossed before but are routinely now? Not sure.

In regards to Russell Wilson---there has also been a proliferation of Jesus/Christian talking in this era. Rather than being seen as a mark of integrity or quality, it could be seen as mere pandering (which is neither inspiring nor meritorious.

I think there's a sort of Hawthorne Effect or Observer effect here. I do think that both trash talk and religious talk are increasing, but I think the attention paid to each is driving that increase. Would Shannon Sbarpe have a job today if he hadn't called the National Guard? I think there's a certain group among NFL producers who think this type of BS suggests they've identified a potential media talent with an ability to think extemporaneously. Franky, Shannon Sharpe sounds lime he's talking with marbles in his mouth. I can barely understand a word he says. Conversely, I think jf you gave them truth serum the NFL Network guys would admit that Kurt Warner js there in part to clean up and whiten up their programming, its a little offensive, but makes good marketing sense.

I never liked him personally, but I always liked Tony Kornheisers rule from his old radio shows of not interviewing athletes themselves - they either gave you nothing, or hyperbole, or wrote answers. Pretty good rule to me, as long as you don't replace them with Stephen A Smith!

#133 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 06 February 2014 - 12:33 AM
The only reason why it may appear there may be more trash talking or religious talk now than before is because microphones are in front of players mouths more now than ever before.

If you had a bunch of microphones in front of players mouths in the 1930's you would hear all kinds of players trash talking as well as all kinds of players praising God for the gifts they were given.

Hell during the Civil War both sides thought that God was on their side and they were destined to win because God thought that they were the just ones.

Whiten up their programming?????? Come on man do you realize how prejudice that sounds.

The nfl network likes to get former players on their shows because in general players and coaches know the game better than anyone else. They may not be the best in front of the camera but in general they will know the game of football better than joe blow who got all his degrees and is well versed in front of a camera. It doesn't have anything to do with who is black and who is white.

#134 Bernard Brinker
Starter
Forum Visitors 152 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:30 PM
NWebster, on 05 Feb 2014 - 9:28 PM, said:
I think there's a sort of Hawthorne Effect or Observer effect here. I do think that both trash talk and religious talk are increasing, but I think the attention paid to each is driving that increase. Would Shannon Sbarpe have a job today if he hadn't called the National Guard? I think there's a certain group among NFL producers who think this type of BS suggests they've identified a potential media talent with an ability to think extemporaneously. Franky, Shannon Sharpe sounds lime he's talking with marbles in his mouth. I can barely understand a word he says. Conversely, I think jf you gave them truth serum the NFL Network guys would admit that Kurt Warner js there in part to clean up and whiten up their programming, its a little offensive, but makes good marketing sense.

I never liked him personally, but I always liked Tony Kornheisers rule from his old radio shows of not interviewing athletes themselves - they either gave you nothing, or hyperbole, or wrote answers. Pretty good rule to me, as long as you don't replace them with Stephen A Smith!

Agreed on Sharpe and Warner; NFL producers see each as appealing to different segments of their target market. Why use all these athletes---not for their insights, which are few and far between, but because the average football fan wants to see them (are emotionally tied to them??). It has been years since I have watched any pre or post-game pap.

#135 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member 323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 06 February 2014 - 02:05 PM
lastcat3, on 06 Feb 2014 - 12:33 AM, said:
Whiten up their programming?????? Come on man do you realize how prejudice that sounds.

The nfl network likes to get former players on their shows because in general players and coaches know the game better than anyone else. They may not be the best in front of the camera but in general they will know the game of football better than joe blow who got all his degrees and is well versed in front of a camera. It doesn't have anything to do with who is black and who is white.
You're trying to have it both ways here. You acknowledge that they have people on not for their analytical skills, but for their entertainment value -- to appeal to a certain demographic. But you deny that there's a significant demographic in the U.S. that are turned off by a group of African-American commentators, particularly when half of them really have nothing of substance to say?

It's less a matter of prejudice than just recognizing reality. Easy for me to say, though, I'm a white male. But in the last fifteen years I've been pulled over in my car by police exactly zero times except for twice that I was driving far in excess of the speed limit.

#136 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:36 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 06 Feb 2014 - 2:05 PM, said:
You're trying to have it both ways here. You acknowledge that they have people on not for their analytical skills, but for their entertainment value -- to appeal to a certain demographic. But you deny that there's a significant demographic in the U.S. that are turned off by a group of African-American commentators, particularly when half of them really have nothing of substance to say?

It's less a matter of prejudice than just recognizing reality. Easy for me to say, though, I'm a white male. But in the last fifteen years I've been pulled over in my car by police exactly zero times except for twice that I was driving far in excess of the speed limit.

Sorry but only idiots are turned off strictly because they happen to be an African American commentator. If you want me to be equally as prejudice as you sound right now I'll just say that a lot of those people who are turned off by African American commentators probably don't have enough money to afford cable.


#137 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member 323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:20 AM
lastcat3, on 06 Feb 2014 - 8:36 PM, said:
--
Sorry but only idiots are turned off strictly because they happen to be an African American commentator. If you want me to be equally as prejudice as you sound right now I'll just say that a lot of those people who are turned off by African American commentators probably don't have enough money to afford cable.
I don't believe it's "prejudice" to say that even in this day and age, there remains a significant segment of the American population (not a majority, just a significant segment) that are bigots.

As for whether they can afford cable, I hate to tell you this, but a few of them are in Congress and a great many of them have talk shows on radio and t.v. So yeah, there are some at least that can afford it.

#138 lastcat3
Veteran
Forum Visitors 668 posts
Posted 07 February 2014 - 02:12 AM

I don't believe it's "prejudice" to say that even in this day and age, there remains a significant segment of the American population (not a majority, just a significant segment) that are bigots.

As for whether they can afford cable, I hate to tell you this, but a few of them are in Congress and a great many of them have talk shows on radio and t.v. So yeah, there are some at least that can afford it.
Sorry but you are sounding prejudice. Rather you want to believe it or not you are. And may I suggest you stop listening to their talk shows if you indeed are.

Page 7 of 7

END of ARCHIVE

POST AS YOU WISH
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
Post Reply