SB XLV - Packers vs. Steelers

paper · **Posted:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:17 pm

thank you, Kingfish...

thrillhouse · **Posted:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:00 pm

Kingfish Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

Rick Derris Wrote:

I just find this whole idea of a dominant team and parity killing the NFL to be sports talk radio bullshit at it's worst.

I think every year is different and unique. The Packers had a laundry list of players go down this year and still held it together. Is it fair to say they weren't dominant because they lost so many players and lost a couple of games because of it? They can only play the competition put in front of them. Lots of things can affect how a season plays out. There are LOTS of "dominant" teams that didn't make it past the 1st round. To say a team that just won the Super Bowl is mediocre is laughable and without merit. Not only that but revisionist history of other "dominant" teams.

Don't even get me started on parity hurting the league. It just isn't true and the stats support that. The margin of victory in games is relatively the same as it was in the 70's, 80's and 90's as well as the amount of teams reaching the playoffs in back to back years.

Not to mention that, as a business model, it's breaking it's own absurd attendance and profit records every year.

margin of victory and teams making the playoffs in back to back years are not indicators of the quality of play across the league or the quality of the top teams. and according to your argument, parity doesn't exist so why are you defending it?

What is your argument again that there is a "lack of quality of play" again? I thought it was no dominant teams. If that's true, then the margin of victories would be different in the oughts as compared to the 70's. And the same teams would be making the playoffs in back to back years.

Without looking at stats, the oughts saw the Pats win 3 superbowls and the Steelers 2. That doesn't seem that different than any other decade. Two teams won half the superbowls. And those teams also each lost a superbowl. So that means that two teams factored in 7 of the 10 superbowls. What is your fucking point? It really does seem like your clinging to any evidence that supports your nostalgia that Joe Montana is no longer beating the powerhouse Bengals.

i just think that the superbowl has been a boring affair for the most part during that time. including the ones the pats won over the eagles and panthers. in the last decade we have had 2 good superbowls, giants over pats and pats over rams. both 14 point dogs beating a dominant team. 2 for 10 is crappy for a game that should be the best game of the season every year.

Kingfish · **Posted:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:04 pm

thrillhouse Wrote:

Kingfish Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

Rick Derris Wrote:

I just find this whole idea of a dominant team and parity killing the NFL to be sports talk radio bullshit at it's worst.

I think every year is different and unique. The Packers had a laundry list of players go down this year and still held it together. Is it fair to say they weren't dominant because they lost so many players and lost a couple of games because of it? They can only play the competition put in front of them. Lots of things can affect how a season plays out. There are LOTS of "dominant" teams that didn't make it past the 1st round. To say a team that just won the Super Bowl is mediocre is laughable and without merit. Not only that but revisionist history of other "dominant" teams.

Don't even get me started on parity hurting the league. It just isn't true and the stats support that. The margin of victory in games is relatively the same as it was in the 70's, 80's and 90's as well as the amount of teams reaching the playoffs in back to back years.

Not to mention that, as a business model, it's breaking it's own absurd attendance and profit records every year.

margin of victory and teams making the playoffs in back to back years are not indicators of the quality of play across the league or the quality of the top teams. and according to your argument, parity doesn't exist so why are you defending it?

What is your argument again that there is a "lack of quality of play" again? I thought it was no dominant teams. If that's true, then the margin of victories would be different in the oughts as compared to the 70's. And the same teams would be making the playoffs in back to back years.

Without looking at stats, the oughts saw the Pats win 3 superbowls and the Steelers 2. That doesn't seem that different than any other decade. Two teams won half the superbowls. And those teams also each lost a superbowl. So that means that two teams factored in 7 of the 10 superbowls. What is your fucking point? It really does seem like your clinging to any evidence that supports your nostalgia that Joe Montana is no longer beating the powerhouse Bengals.

i just think that the superbowl has been a boring affair for the most part during that time. including the ones the pats won over the eagles and panthers. in the last decade we have had 2 good superbowls, giants over pats and pats over rams. both 14 point dogs beating a dominant team. 2 for 10 is crappy for a game that should be the best game of the season every year.

You didn't enjoy the Saints comeback win last year with an onside kick? Two teams that went 13-0 and challenged undefeated seasons.

jewels santana · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:36 pm **Posts:** 10198

my memory is that the SBs have been great recently, outside of the bullshit surrounding them.

Yail Bloor · **Posted:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:30 pm

See I think starting with the Rams-Titans in 2000 (great game) 7 of the 12 most recent SB games have been entertaining and were decided in the fourth quarter. That's a much higher percentage of competitive games than I remember at any point in my life and I've watched every Super Bowl since the aforementioned Miami-SF game in 1985. (Between 1985-1999, only 4 of the 14 games were competitive in the fourth quarter and one of those was a pretty terrible game to boot (Dallas-Steelers), so really 3 of 14.

Kingfish · **Posted:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:42 pm

Apparently , thrill house is only happy when one team is favored by 20 points and loses in an upset, which is suppose to happen every year.

seafoam · **Posted:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:43 pm

Yail Bloor Wrote:

See I think starting with the Rams-Titans in 2000 (great game) .

Down to the last play on the 1 yard line if I remember.

mutty · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:14 am

seafoam Wrote:

Yail Bloor Wrote:

See I think starting with the Rams-Titans in 2000 (great game) .

Down to the last play on the 1 yard line if I remember.

Yup, most exciting SB game that I remember. Anyone who thinks this year's game was boring just wasn't watching... it came down to a game-winning drive in the last 2 minutes, the more experienced team down by 6 and with the ball. wtf else can you ask for in a game?

I admit that when it isn't MY team in a game I more easily lose interest. But I don't blame the entire sport or the skill level of the teams for my disinterest.

DHRjericho · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:16 am

Picked this up as well

and may need to get one of these.

Rick Derris · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:29 am

It's time to take a step back from the computer DHR.

FT · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:02 am

thrillhouse Wrote:

i just think that the superbowl has been a boring affair for the most part during that time. including the ones the pats won over the eagles and panthers. in the last decade we have had 2 good superbowls

you are insane

DHRjericho · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:52 pm

Rick Derris Wrote:

It's time to take a step back from the computer DHR.

You're not wrong.

two guns holla · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:03 pm

FT Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

i just think that the superbowl has been a boring affair for the most part during that time. including the ones the pats won over the eagles and panthers. in the last decade we have had 2 good superbowls

you are insane

From Wikipedia entry for the Pats/Panthers Superbowl:

Quote:

NFL fans and sports writers widely consider it one of the most well-played and exciting Super Bowls. After the game, Sports Illustrated writer Peter King hailed it as the "Greatest Super Bowl of all time."[3]

It may have not been that, but at the very least it wasn't boring.

thrillhouse · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:52 am

two guns holla Wrote:

FT Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

i just think that the superbowl has been a boring affair for the most part during that time. including the ones the pats won over the eagles and panthers. in the last decade we have had 2 good superbowls

you are insane

From Wikipedia entry for the Pats/Panthers Superbowl:

Quote:

NFL fans and sports writers widely consider it one of the most well-played and exciting Super Bowls. After the game, Sports Illustrated writer Peter King hailed it as the "Greatest Super Bowl of all time."[3]

It may have not been that, but at the very least it wasn't boring.

you guys need to stop posting peter king shit in here. aside from peter king calling it a great superbowl, i would be shocked if anyone outside of new england or carolina could tell us a final score or give us even a remotely accurate summary of that game from memory. don't get me wrong, i enjoyed that game. but don't be fooled by the fact that the panthers went ahead late, my feeling as a pats fan watching it was that it was never in doubt. i had more stress watching the one against the eagles when mcnabb was vomiting in the huddle and struggling to get his own ass to under center when he needed quick scores.

anyway, my point the entire time has been that you suckers are confusing close scores and more or less random outcomes with quality football. you and peter king should just watch the coin flip. that's a 50/50 proposition... talk about exciting.

i am pleased with the result of that game, but

Flying Rabbit · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:33 am

thrillhouse Wrote:

i would be shocked if anyone outside of new england or carolina could tell us a final score

The Super Bowl was last Sunday and I can't even remember the score. That's not a compelling argument.

Quote:

anyway, my point the entire time has been that you suckers are confusing close scores and more or less random outcomes with quality football. you and peter king should just watch the coin flip. that's a 50/50 proposition... talk about exciting.

Wait, what? I think we're getting into an opinion field here. To you, it seems like a team must definitively win a game by a bazillion points in order for it to be "quality football". Because, for me personally, a close score on paper would signify a close game, which would mean it was probably a pretty good game imo. I get that. Some people like HRs, some like a pitching duel.

Also, 50/50 game would be pretty amazing as well. Sorry but it would. 2 equal-strength teams going head-to-head? This is why the Ravens/Steelers games are always some of the most popular games on tv.

Yail Bloor · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:10 am

thrillhouse Wrote:

anyway, my point the entire time has been that you suckers are confusing close scores and more or less random outcomes with quality football.

If that was your point the entire time, you coulda fooled me: You just change what it is that you are arguing every time your current argument gets destroyed. Which is fine, for you. Just don't confuse it with making an argument or a salient point.

mutty · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:12 am

Yail Bloor Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

anyway, my point the entire time has been that you suckers are confusing close scores and more or less random outcomes with quality football.

If that was your point the entire time, you coulda fooled me: You just change what it is that you are arguing every time your current argument gets destroyed. Which is fine, for you. Just don't confuse it with making an argument or a salient point.

o snap

seafoam · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:19 am

Yail Bloor Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

anyway, my point the entire time has been that you suckers are confusing close scores and more or less random outcomes with quality football.

If that was your point the entire time, you coulda fooled me: You just change what it is that you are arguing every time your current argument gets destroyed. Which is fine, for you. Just don't confuse it with making an argument or a salient point.

and it still makes no sense, please qualify "quality football" and stick to it

Cupcakes · **Joined:** Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:04 am **Posts:** 3271

Quality Football == Tom Brady handjobs for you and Chris Collinsworth while watching the Pats win every game on TiVO.

thrillhouse · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:45 am

thrillhouse Wrote:

the nfl has definitely gotten what they wanted in terms of league parity, but if you ask me it has taken the seltzer out of the big game. give me 2 dominant teams facing off or a david v goliath matchup any day. sure it was a close game, but neither of those teams impressed me.

here is my original post in here, stating the same thing. the teams are not great, but the game was close.

thrillhouse · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:47 am

Flying Rabbit Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

i would be shocked if anyone outside of new england or carolina could tell us a final score

The Super Bowl was last Sunday and I can't even remember the score. That's not a compelling argument.

Quote:

anyway, my point the entire time has been that you suckers are confusing close scores and more or less random outcomes with quality football. you and peter king should just watch the coin flip. that's a 50/50 proposition... talk about exciting.

Wait, what? I think we're getting into an opinion field here. To you, it seems like a team must definitively win a game by a bazillion points in order for it to be "quality football". Because, for me personally, a close score on paper would signify a close game, which would mean it was probably a pretty good game imo. I get that. Some people like HRs, some like a pitching duel.

Also, 50/50 game would be pretty amazing as well. Sorry but it would. 2 equal-strength teams going head-to-head? This is why the Ravens/Steelers games are always some of the most popular games on tv.

a close game on does not mean a good game. and your last point is how the nfl feels. and you might get close and/or good games out of it, but the result feels somewhat random, often determined by luck more than anything. that is what i am saying all along. i am happy for you guys that you are entertained by it.

Kingfish · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:51 am

thrillhouse Wrote:

Flying Rabbit Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

i would be shocked if anyone outside of new england or carolina could tell us a final score

The Super Bowl was last Sunday and I can't even remember the score. That's not a compelling argument.

Quote:

anyway, my point the entire time has been that you suckers are confusing close scores and more or less random outcomes with quality football. you and peter king should just watch the coin flip. that's a 50/50 proposition... talk about exciting.

Wait, what? I think we're getting into an opinion field here. To you, it seems like a team must definitively win a game by a bazillion points in order for it to be "quality football". Because, for me personally, a close score on paper would signify a close game, which would mean it was probably a pretty good game imo. I get that. Some people like HRs, some like a pitching duel.

Also, 50/50 game would be pretty amazing as well. Sorry but it would. 2 equal-strength teams going head-to-head? This is why the Ravens/Steelers games are always some of the most popular games on tv.

a close game on does not mean a good game. and your last point is how the nfl feels. and you might get close and/or good games out of it, but the result feels somewhat random, often determined by luck more than anything. that is what i am saying all along. i am happy for you guys that you are entertained by it.

Your problem is you can't seem to quantify what is good. You've danced around ideas, which have been mostly destroyed. Whatever qualities we attach to the recent games, you're response is "________ doesn't equal good." As if that's a decisive point.

seafoam · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:00 pm

Your "good game, quality football" conundrum really just says you do not like football. You are not as much a fan anymore. You outgrew it or it outgrew you. But, either way that's really it and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't follow it half as much as I did 10 years ago.

Yail Bloor · **Posted:** Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:45 pm

seafoam Wrote:

Your "good game, quality football" conundrum really just says you do not like football. You are not as much a fan anymore. You outgrew it or it outgrew you. But, either way that's really it and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't follow it half as much as I did 10 years ago.

It's like the people you grew up with complaining on Facebook that there's "no good music being made anymore".

rogneeb · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:07 pm **Posts:** 12618

Yail Bloor Wrote:

seafoam Wrote:

Your "good game, quality football" conundrum really just says you do not like football. You are not as much a fan anymore. You outgrew it or it outgrew you. But, either way that's really it and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't follow it half as much as I did 10 years ago.

It's like the people you grew up with complaining on Facebook that there's "no good music being made anymore".

i always respond to this by saying "no, not typically on the Z100 Morning Zoo with Slappy Jim and the Monkey Boys."

SB XLV - Packers vs. Steelers

Who is online