| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 16196
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| SFPatsFan wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | The 49ers have really hurt themselves by wasting those 2 time outs |
Kaepernick hurt the 9ers by throwing an uncatchable ball on 4th and Goal. |
The playcalling in general on that series was awful |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 16196
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| And Randy Moss will join Dan Marino, Bruce Smith and a bunch of others to be amongst the best ever and never have won a Super Bowl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richter
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 9317
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Richter wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Richter wrote: | | Even if Baltimore has the advantage in the head to head matchup, that doesn't make them the better team overall. |
Oh, so because the Patriots were more talented (I guess that's your argument?) they were more deserving? Does execution and coaching not count? How can the Patriots be so much better to be a "deserving" champion and the Ravens be a "crap team" if they lost to Baltimore twice?
| Quote: | | You love to point out the Pats' flaws, but did you actually watch the Ravens this season? Way, way more to point out there. |
I never said they were a great team. An elite team. Or a team without big flaws
| Quote: | | You have to actually evaluate teams on the whole of their performance, not just the ones you want to cherry pick. |
And the "whole of their performance" includes the post-season does it not? I'd say their wins - against "better" teams (Denver, New England, San Francisco) mean more and are more impressive than the Pats wins against Buffalo, Tennessee or the Jets. But I guess you don't see it that way. Is racking up wins against garbage teams (some of which were barely wins) in some way more impressive than beating top playoff teams?
| Quote: | | I have no problem with the 49ers if they win, they're a legitimate elite team. |
The 11-4-1 49ers are a "legitimate elite team" but the team they are losing to in the Super Bowl - The 10-6 Ravens - are a "crap" team. Yeah, I don't get that. Execution on the biggest stages, against the best teams - to me, that is the mark of a "deserving champion". Either of these teams would be worthy champions in my mind.
| Quote: | | If you see an elite team in the Ravens, and not just a team that's been riding an emotional high and playing on a hot streak, I really, really have to wonder what team you've been watching. |
I don't see an elite team. I don't see the "best" team in terms of talent. I don't see the most well coached team. I do see a team that is IMO deserving of being called Super Bowl Champions.
Calling the Ravens a "crap" team or saying they are undeserving of being a rightful champion is a bridge too far for me.
Like you said, we're probably never going to see eye to eye on this. I don't expect the most talented 53 man roster or best run organization to win the Super Bowl. Any team that makes the playoffs (with double digit wins) and can bring home the Lombardi is a deserving champion in my eyes. If the Pats had won the Super Bowl in 2006, I wouldn't have thought they were undeserving. The 2011 Patriots had huge flaws but I wouldn't have thought them undeserving. |
Actually, that raises a good point. What about the 2005 squad? They got jobbed in Denver, but that was not a Super Bowl winning squad anyway. If they had gotten hot and won it, though, I definitely would have considered them undeserving. The point of the whole exercise is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the current model fails to do so, in my estimation. |
Sounds like you're advocating for a playoff-less system. Just let the best team in the AFC face the best team in the NFC.
Any other option (and even that has plenty of flaws) is going to result in just about every champion being "undeserving" due to the role that injuries, luck and matchups play in football.
The Ravens holding on and stopping the 49ers on 4 straight goal-to-go plays with 2 minutes to go in the Super Bowl is impressive and it's tough to imagine the 2012 Pats or Broncos having such a stand. |
Yeah, I have given it some thought. I really dislike the current playoff model. I don't believe it's anything more than a crapshoot at this point. If I wanted to watch that, I could go down to my local casino. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dalton
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 1636
Location: Illinois
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
That Ravens team is so unlikable. And their fans, ugh.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sciz
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 12835
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
So do people remember this as the game where Ray Lewis played terribly but still won?
_________________
Shut up, NBT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tzimisce
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 40626
Location: Slowly coming to terms with the inevitable
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 16196
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Richter wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Richter wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Richter wrote: | | Even if Baltimore has the advantage in the head to head matchup, that doesn't make them the better team overall. |
Oh, so because the Patriots were more talented (I guess that's your argument?) they were more deserving? Does execution and coaching not count? How can the Patriots be so much better to be a "deserving" champion and the Ravens be a "crap team" if they lost to Baltimore twice?
| Quote: | | You love to point out the Pats' flaws, but did you actually watch the Ravens this season? Way, way more to point out there. |
I never said they were a great team. An elite team. Or a team without big flaws
| Quote: | | You have to actually evaluate teams on the whole of their performance, not just the ones you want to cherry pick. |
And the "whole of their performance" includes the post-season does it not? I'd say their wins - against "better" teams (Denver, New England, San Francisco) mean more and are more impressive than the Pats wins against Buffalo, Tennessee or the Jets. But I guess you don't see it that way. Is racking up wins against garbage teams (some of which were barely wins) in some way more impressive than beating top playoff teams?
| Quote: | | I have no problem with the 49ers if they win, they're a legitimate elite team. |
The 11-4-1 49ers are a "legitimate elite team" but the team they are losing to in the Super Bowl - The 10-6 Ravens - are a "crap" team. Yeah, I don't get that. Execution on the biggest stages, against the best teams - to me, that is the mark of a "deserving champion". Either of these teams would be worthy champions in my mind.
| Quote: | | If you see an elite team in the Ravens, and not just a team that's been riding an emotional high and playing on a hot streak, I really, really have to wonder what team you've been watching. |
I don't see an elite team. I don't see the "best" team in terms of talent. I don't see the most well coached team. I do see a team that is IMO deserving of being called Super Bowl Champions.
Calling the Ravens a "crap" team or saying they are undeserving of being a rightful champion is a bridge too far for me.
Like you said, we're probably never going to see eye to eye on this. I don't expect the most talented 53 man roster or best run organization to win the Super Bowl. Any team that makes the playoffs (with double digit wins) and can bring home the Lombardi is a deserving champion in my eyes. If the Pats had won the Super Bowl in 2006, I wouldn't have thought they were undeserving. The 2011 Patriots had huge flaws but I wouldn't have thought them undeserving. |
Actually, that raises a good point. What about the 2005 squad? They got jobbed in Denver, but that was not a Super Bowl winning squad anyway. If they had gotten hot and won it, though, I definitely would have considered them undeserving. The point of the whole exercise is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the current model fails to do so, in my estimation. |
Sounds like you're advocating for a playoff-less system. Just let the best team in the AFC face the best team in the NFC.
Any other option (and even that has plenty of flaws) is going to result in just about every champion being "undeserving" due to the role that injuries, luck and matchups play in football.
The Ravens holding on and stopping the 49ers on 4 straight goal-to-go plays with 2 minutes to go in the Super Bowl is impressive and it's tough to imagine the 2012 Pats or Broncos having such a stand. |
Yeah, I have given it some thought. I really dislike the current playoff model. I don't believe it's anything more than a crapshoot at this point. If I wanted to watch that, I could go down to my local casino. |
Outside of the European soccer model, I don't see any way to truly determine the most "deserving" or "best" team. Any system is going to have some element of luck - whether it's a fluky play type of luck or the luck of playing in a really soft (or hard) division.
I think the issue here is really - and I know you've said it before - there's no such thing as an "elite" team any more. Certainly, very few of the top teams of the last decade could stand up to the all-time great teams. But free agency, the salary cap, expansion etc have really destroyed that model of "elite."
Honestly, if the 2007 Patriots had gone 15-1 (and they were very close to 15-1 or 14-2) and finished the season the same way, would we really consider them an all-time great team? One that could have stood toe to toe with the great Steelers, 49ers or Cowboys (etc) teams of all time? I'm not so sure, although I could see how anyone who has only watched football since 2000 would think it's a ridiculous suggestion on my part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Billy Spikes
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 26264
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 16196
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sciz wrote: | | So do people remember this as the game where Ray Lewis played terribly but still won? |
History won't remember it that way. Just those of us who loathe Ray Lewis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sciz
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 12835
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
This game played out almost exactly like the NE/SF game, except that SF was on the other side this time. One team started out very hot and continued that through the beginning of the second half, before a second half comeback that fell just short.
_________________
Shut up, NBT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richter
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 9317
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Richter wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Richter wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Richter wrote: | | Even if Baltimore has the advantage in the head to head matchup, that doesn't make them the better team overall. |
Oh, so because the Patriots were more talented (I guess that's your argument?) they were more deserving? Does execution and coaching not count? How can the Patriots be so much better to be a "deserving" champion and the Ravens be a "crap team" if they lost to Baltimore twice?
| Quote: | | You love to point out the Pats' flaws, but did you actually watch the Ravens this season? Way, way more to point out there. |
I never said they were a great team. An elite team. Or a team without big flaws
| Quote: | | You have to actually evaluate teams on the whole of their performance, not just the ones you want to cherry pick. |
And the "whole of their performance" includes the post-season does it not? I'd say their wins - against "better" teams (Denver, New England, San Francisco) mean more and are more impressive than the Pats wins against Buffalo, Tennessee or the Jets. But I guess you don't see it that way. Is racking up wins against garbage teams (some of which were barely wins) in some way more impressive than beating top playoff teams?
| Quote: | | I have no problem with the 49ers if they win, they're a legitimate elite team. |
The 11-4-1 49ers are a "legitimate elite team" but the team they are losing to in the Super Bowl - The 10-6 Ravens - are a "crap" team. Yeah, I don't get that. Execution on the biggest stages, against the best teams - to me, that is the mark of a "deserving champion". Either of these teams would be worthy champions in my mind.
| Quote: | | If you see an elite team in the Ravens, and not just a team that's been riding an emotional high and playing on a hot streak, I really, really have to wonder what team you've been watching. |
I don't see an elite team. I don't see the "best" team in terms of talent. I don't see the most well coached team. I do see a team that is IMO deserving of being called Super Bowl Champions.
Calling the Ravens a "crap" team or saying they are undeserving of being a rightful champion is a bridge too far for me.
Like you said, we're probably never going to see eye to eye on this. I don't expect the most talented 53 man roster or best run organization to win the Super Bowl. Any team that makes the playoffs (with double digit wins) and can bring home the Lombardi is a deserving champion in my eyes. If the Pats had won the Super Bowl in 2006, I wouldn't have thought they were undeserving. The 2011 Patriots had huge flaws but I wouldn't have thought them undeserving. |
Actually, that raises a good point. What about the 2005 squad? They got jobbed in Denver, but that was not a Super Bowl winning squad anyway. If they had gotten hot and won it, though, I definitely would have considered them undeserving. The point of the whole exercise is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the current model fails to do so, in my estimation. |
Sounds like you're advocating for a playoff-less system. Just let the best team in the AFC face the best team in the NFC.
Any other option (and even that has plenty of flaws) is going to result in just about every champion being "undeserving" due to the role that injuries, luck and matchups play in football.
The Ravens holding on and stopping the 49ers on 4 straight goal-to-go plays with 2 minutes to go in the Super Bowl is impressive and it's tough to imagine the 2012 Pats or Broncos having such a stand. |
Yeah, I have given it some thought. I really dislike the current playoff model. I don't believe it's anything more than a crapshoot at this point. If I wanted to watch that, I could go down to my local casino. |
Outside of the European soccer model, I don't see any way to truly determine the most "deserving" or "best" team. Any system is going to have some element of luck - whether it's a fluky play type of luck or the luck of playing in a really soft (or hard) division.
I think the issue here is really - and I know you've said it before - there's no such thing as an "elite" team any more. Certainly, very few of the top teams of the last decade could stand up to the all-time great teams. But free agency, the salary cap, expansion etc have really destroyed that model of "elite."
Honestly, if the 2007 Patriots had gone 15-1 (and they were very close to 15-1 or 14-2) and finished the season the same way, would we really consider them an all-time great team? One that could have stood toe to toe with the great Steelers, 49ers or Cowboys (etc) teams of all time? I'm not so sure, although I could see how anyone who has only watched football since 2000 would think it's a ridiculous suggestion on my part. |
Well, at least it seems like you understand what I'm really complaining about. Although, I do believe that 2007 Patriots' squad is an all-time great team. Whatever they lose from playing during the salary cap era, they gain in the vast improvements in the size and athleticism of modern players, and the sheer dominance they exhibited for a long stretch during that season. They would annihilate any of the great 70s or 80s squad, simply by virtue of having bigger, better athletes at most if not all positions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 16196
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Richter wrote: |
Well, at least it seems like you understand what I'm really complaining about. |
Yes, I do understand (and to some extent agree) with your complaint of how teams like the 2007 Giants (a far better example thanthis year's Ravens team IMO) can be called the "best".
I guess I'm willing to accept it though. Football more than any other sport has always been (and will always be) all about single game match ups. It's one thing for a team to get by with ridiculous luck or egregiously bad penalties (e.g. Sugar Bear Hamilton's roughing the passer) but I don't see a way to eliminate the "match up effect" from the sport.
The 1990 Buffalo Bills most likely would have beaten any NFC team other than the Giants in the Super Bowl, but they happened to draw the one team that could out coach and out execute them due to the ways each team (roster and coaches) was built. The 2007 Patriots probably would have smoked any other NFC team but they happened to draw a team which was a really difficult match up.
| Quote: | | Although, I do believe that 2007 Patriots' squad is an all-time great team. Whatever they lose from playing during the salary cap era, they gain in the vast improvements in the size and athleticism of modern players, and the sheer dominance they exhibited for a long stretch during that season. They would annihilate any of the great 70s or 80s squad, simply by virtue of having bigger, better athletes at most if not all positions. |
Well yes, if you literally put them head to head on the field against those teams - but you could say that about almost any modern playoff team.
But I meant more that the 2007 Patriots team was one which is remembered mostly for their first half dominance. The 2007 Patriots from week 9 on were no different than any number of other good teams we've seen in the last 20 years. In those last 11 games, they did not look like a team that I would deem worthy of being considered an "all time great" team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SFPatsFan
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 1941
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Dalton wrote: | | That Ravens team is so unlikable. And their fans, ugh. |
Oddly it seems that it is only the Ravens fans on this site because I was in Baltimore over the summer and some Ravens fans were talking about Flacco's new contract. It eventually led to Brady and Manning's contracts and one of the Ravens fan said Brady is the greatest QB to ever play the game. Another said the only way Joe Flacco is mentioned in the same sentence as Brady and Manning is if that sentence starts with "I wish we could trade Flacco for..." In Baltimore most of the fans I met were very nice people and not trolls at all. I do hate Suggs as a person and I'm starting to dislike Oher because I feel he gets a lot of no calls because of his story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pats#1
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 1891
Location: Plymouth, MA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Sciz wrote: | | So do people remember this as the game where Ray Lewis played terribly but still won? |
History won't remember it that way. Just those of us who loathe Ray Lewis. |
History will unfortunately say he lead this team to the SB championship title...however, his play on the field couldn't be any further from the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pats#1
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 1891
Location: Plymouth, MA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SFPatsFan wrote: | | Dalton wrote: | | That Ravens team is so unlikable. And their fans, ugh. |
Oddly it seems that it is only the Ravens fans on this site because I was in Baltimore over the summer and some Ravens fans were talking about Flacco's new contract. It eventually led to Brady and Manning's contracts and one of the Ravens fan said Brady is the greatest QB to ever play the game. Another said the only way Joe Flacco is mentioned in the same sentence as Brady and Manning is if that sentence starts with "I wish we could trade Flacco for..." In Baltimore most of the fans I met were very nice people and not trolls at all. I do hate Suggs as a person and I'm starting to dislike Oher because I feel he gets a lot of no calls because of his story. |
People tend to be a lot more courageous and honest when they are hiding behind a computer screen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
