Superbowl 41 thread

HaqDiesel · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:01 pm

Hey south pacific the Bears lost.

south pacific · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:02 pm

Radcliffe Wrote:

I just want to say THANK YOU, OBNER BEARS FANS - you were so fucking obnoxious throughout the season that, for the first time, I actually had a vested interest in who won the Superbowl. Subsequently, that was the most satisfying and entertaining shitty football game I've ever seen.

You mean even after watching your CFL championship? Oh yeah, that's right...even people in Canada don't watch that watered-down bullshit.

FT · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:03 pm

south pacific Wrote:

robotboy Wrote:

the thing that gets me is not the fact that they lost. its how they lost. if they played perfect and lost then i could say "well there was nothing more the bears could do" and be ok. it was just that they (mostly grossman) were making boneheaded plays. to be only down 5 starting the 4th quarter was a godsend, a gift opportunity, but then grossman starts chucking floaters that get picked off. or earlier when jones runs for 9 then grossman trips over himself and fumbles on the next two snaps. so the fact they lost it more than the colts won it is what really frustrates me.

Yes, though the curse of Bob really irks me as well.

[stewie]VICTORY IS MINE!!![/stewie]

south pacific · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:03 pm

HaqDiesel Wrote:

Hey south pacific the Bears lost.

Noted. Thanks for the update.

HaqDiesel · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:03 pm

south pacific Wrote:

You mean even after watching your CFL championship? Oh yeah, that's right...even people in Canada don't watch that watered-down bullshit.

Cap'n Squirrgle · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:04 pm

HaqDiesel Wrote:

south pacific Wrote:

You mean even after watching your CFL championship? Oh yeah, that's right...even people in Canada don't watch that watered-down bullshit.

...awesome.

Senator LooGAR · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:12 pm

south pacific Wrote:

Sen. LooGAR (D-Pedantic) Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

two fumbled snaps in the superbowl is unimpressive

And an arm like a limp dishrag. This dude isn't Elway, shouldering a team to 3 Super Bowls. The two interceptions, and the other duck had the trajectory of a moon-shot-parabola. Sorry, I would have cut him DURING the game. I understand being a homer, but, as I said a long time ago, he's not going to get you there.

This is what the naysayers having been saying about Peyton Manning for the past 3-4 years now. Seems kind of stupid now, huh?

Also, I have to take issue with the Bears D. Playing that bullshit soft zone was their death knell. No pressure on Manning, and basically being in prevent most of the game made all of those 8 yard dumps and 6 yard runs a virtual certainty. You are lucky it was raining or the score would have been worse.

Had you been actually watching the game instead of drinking yourself into a stupor you would have noticed that the Bears' defense stopped the Colts offense in the red zone 6 times, making them settle for field goals mostly if not making them punt it away on fourth down.

who mentioned drinking? Maybe if you could take the cocks out of your eyesockets, you would have watched the same game that I, and the rest of the rational world saw. You would have noticed that they never got pressure on Manning, and that he pretty much destroyed them with those moves. Also, field goals produce points, as do limply thrown moonballs interecepted by the other team and run back for touchdowns. I feel bad for your team, they lost that game by not making adjustments on D, and having a bad QB. Not an overmatched young QB, not a guy who will one day rise like a phoenix and deliver this team a championship, a bad QB who should be getting a pink slip today. Sorry.

Whether you understand this or not, it is a fact of the game that time of possession, and total yards do play into it. The Bears D was on the field more than they needed to be, and was tired and susceptible to these types of plays. But why observe things like that when you can post things like "DEVGIN HESGER RUN REAL GOOG" and get skull fucked at the same time?

thisotherkingdom · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:14 pm

I got really drunk last night.

Odds Bodkins · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:30 pm

south pacific Wrote:

i]Had you been actually watching the game instead of drinking yourself into a stupor you would have noticed that the Bears' defense stopped the Colts offense in the red zone 6 times, making them settle for field goals mostly if not making them punt it away on fourth down.[/i]

The fact they got to the red zone 6 times is another thing. The Colts racked up close to 450 years of offense in a monsoon. The Bears defense was serviceable, but if they could tackle a career backup, it might have been a different story. Also, playing contain rather than the aggressive, 44-takeaway style they played in every other game was ridiculous.

Ron Rivera had this pearl of wisdom:

Chicago defensive coordinator Ron Rivera said he didn't expect Indianapolis' offense, known for its quick-strike scoring, to be able to pull back and adopt a ball-control philosophy so fluidly.

"Honestly, I really didn't," Rivera said. "Their patience, I thought, was tremendous."

There's our defensive coordinator, folks.

FT · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:33 pm

Odds Bodkins Wrote:

There's our defensive coordinator, folks.

You guys go right ahead and run his ass out of town...just be sure and point him in the general direction of Dallas before you do. We'll take him off your hands.

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

bears defense were okay, but it's hard to stay good the whole game when your team keeps going 3 and out. Or worse fumbling on the first play.

pinehurst · **Joined:** Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:45 am **Posts:** 1526

I'm so glad to be away from Indy - what a bunch of losers.

Sincerely,

Edgerrin

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:30 pm

jewels santana Wrote:

bears defense were okay, but it's hard to stay good the whole game when your team keeps going 3 and out. Or worse fumbling on the first play.

Let's not forget that the Colts kept giving the Bears the ball at the damn 40 yard line on kickoffs.

shiv · **Posted:** Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:48 pm

Radcliffe Wrote:

I just want to say THANK YOU, OBNER BEARS FANS - you were so fucking obnoxious throughout the season that, for the first time, I actually had a vested interest in who won the Superbowl. Subsequently, that was the most satisfying and entertaining shitty football game I've ever seen.

i had money on the bears and i don't even care that i lost. the whining is more satisfying.

thrillhouse · **Posted:** Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:22 am

i love that it comes as a surprise to some fools that the afc championship game is the superbowl. for all the nfl parity, they sure don't seem to know how to keep the conferences competitive.

thisotherkingdom · **Posted:** Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:31 am

thrillhouse Wrote:

i love that it comes as a surprise to some fools that the afc championship game is the superbowl. for all the nfl parity, they sure don't seem to know how to keep the conferences competitive.

Sorry, but I think that's just bullshit coming from an AFC fan. And add on top of that, a fan of the team that lost in the AFC championship game. Maybe it makes you feel better, but the Super Bowl is still the Super Bowl. Forget last night's game, were the Steelers really better than the Seahawks last year?

I'll freely admit that the AFC has a larger number of obviously GOOD teams (Ravens, Patriots, Colts, Chargers). But the NFC has just as many teams that can compete with them on any given night. It appears that the dominance goes in cycles, but I certainly don't remember the NFC championship being the "real" super bowl in the 80s and 90s.

The Dreaded Marco · **Posted:** Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:13 am

thisotherkingdom Wrote:

I got really drunk last night.

I think this settles our bet. I'm pulling for the Bulls now. Looking forward to a 6-pack of St. Louis' finest.

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

thrillhouse Wrote:

i love that it comes as a surprise to some fools that the afc championship game is the superbowl. for all the nfl parity, they sure don't seem to know how to keep the conferences competitive.

it's cyclical, that's just the nature of competition.
and the AFC's run isn't anywhere near what the NFC's run was.

Senator LooGAR · **Posted:** Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:05 pm

thisotherkingdom Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

i love that it comes as a surprise to some fools that the afc championship game is the superbowl. for all the nfl parity, they sure don't seem to know how to keep the conferences competitive.

but I certainly don't remember the NFC championship being the "real" super bowl in the 80s and 90s.

XXXI Jan. 26, 1997 Green Bay 35, New England 21
XXX Jan. 28, 1996 Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17
XXIX Jan. 29, 1995 San Francisco 49, San Diego 26
XXVIII Jan. 30, 1994 Dallas 30, Buffalo 13
XXVII Jan. 31, 1993 Dallas 52, Buffalo 17
XXVI Jan. 26, 1992 Washington 37, Buffalo 24
XXV Jan. 27, 1991 N.Y. Giants 20, Buffalo 19
XXIV Jan. 28, 1990 San Francisco 55, Denver 10
XXIII Jan. 22, 1989 San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16
XXII Jan. 31, 1988 Washington 42, Denver 10
XXI Jan. 25, 1987 N.Y. Giants 39, Denver 20
XX Jan. 26, 1986 Chicago 46, New England 10
XIX Jan. 20, 1985 San Francisco 38, Miami 16
XVIII Jan. 22, 1984 L.A. Raiders 38, Washington 9
XVII Jan. 30, 1983 Washington 27, Miami 17
XVI Jan. 24, 1982 San Francisco 26, Cincinnati 21
XV Jan. 25, 1981 Oakland 27, Philadelphia 10

15-2. Now, I don't mean that the game was a forgone conclusion in all of these, which it seems that thrillhouse is saying, but in actuality, aside from The Raiders, no AFC team won a SB in 17 years.

MontyTheMongoose · **Posted:** Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:23 pm

Sen. LooGAR (D-Pedantic) Wrote:

thisotherkingdom Wrote:

thrillhouse Wrote:

i love that it comes as a surprise to some fools that the afc championship game is the superbowl. for all the nfl parity, they sure don't seem to know how to keep the conferences competitive.

but I certainly don't remember the NFC championship being the "real" super bowl in the 80s and 90s.

XXXI Jan. 26, 1997 Green Bay 35, New England 21
XXX Jan. 28, 1996 Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17
XXIX Jan. 29, 1995 San Francisco 49, San Diego 26
XXVIII Jan. 30, 1994 Dallas 30, Buffalo 13
XXVII Jan. 31, 1993 Dallas 52, Buffalo 17
XXVI Jan. 26, 1992 Washington 37, Buffalo 24
XXV Jan. 27, 1991 N.Y. Giants 20, Buffalo 19
XXIV Jan. 28, 1990 San Francisco 55, Denver 10
XXIII Jan. 22, 1989 San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16
XXII Jan. 31, 1988 Washington 42, Denver 10
XXI Jan. 25, 1987 N.Y. Giants 39, Denver 20
XX Jan. 26, 1986 Chicago 46, New England 10
XIX Jan. 20, 1985 San Francisco 38, Miami 16
XVIII Jan. 22, 1984 L.A. Raiders 38, Washington 9
XVII Jan. 30, 1983 Washington 27, Miami 17
XVI Jan. 24, 1982 San Francisco 26, Cincinnati 21
XV Jan. 25, 1981 Oakland 27, Philadelphia 10

15-2. Now, I don't mean that the game was a forgone conclusion in all of these, which it seems that thrillhouse is saying, but in actuality, aside from The Raiders, no AFC team won a SB in 17 years.

Since '97 ('96 season)...

XXXII Denver over Green Bay
XXXIII Denver over Atlanta (that's gotta be a typo... per the GARS, nobody beats the ATL)
XXXIV St. Louis over Tennessee
XXXV Baltimore over NYG
XXXVI New England over St. Louis
XXXVII Tampa over Oakland
XXXVIII New England over Carolina
XXXIX New England over Philadelphia
XL Pittsburgh over Seattle (all-AFC Super Bowl, for those watching in New England)
XLI Indianapolis over Chicago

It looks like the NFC is winning every third year (granted, not in '06, but, again, that was an all-AFC SB).

Senator LooGAR · **Posted:** Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:41 pm

For the Male Nurse:

Monty's Homeboy Gregg Easterbrook Wrote:

Defense was vanilla squared. Both sides played conventional 4-3-4 the entire way, no stunting, no presnap movement. Chicago blitzed three times and showed the blitz three other times, then backed out. Indianapolis blitzed once. My guess is this game offered fewer blitzes than any other of the NFL season. Chicago used no mixed or disguised coverages. On every snap the corners played the wideouts one-on-one with safeties deep, linebackers dropping to the slant zones. This conservative scheme prevented Indianapolis from connecting on any long passes, save for the touchdown to Reggie Wayne -- a broken play in which the safeties came up because they thought Manning had crossed the line of scrimmage. Because the coverage was so conservative and vanilla, the Colts' star receivers had an average night while the flare pass to Joseph Addai was open: The best thing Manning did was simply check down to Addai on third downs. By the eighth or ninth flare completion to Addai, I was wondering when the Bears defense would adjust. Answer: never.

What game was it you were watching?

long gone · **Joined:** Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:53 pm **Posts:** 3262

I did try and watch it, but it's so boring. Oh first down, excellent, let's go to a break.

I know most of you think soccer's boring so it's cool.

I can only watch keyshawn play.

catswilleatyou · **Posted:** Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:07 pm

catswilleatyou · **Posted:** Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:08 pm

take that

long gone · **Joined:** Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:53 pm **Posts:** 3262

catswilleatyou Wrote:

take that

[/img]

Superbowl 41 thread

Who is online