Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2005 20:13:03 GMT -5
With two minutes gone in the second half of the Pats-Steelers game, I grace you all with my Super Bowl prediction:
Patriots - 75, Eagles 6
There you have it.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Jan 23, 2005 21:03:15 GMT -5
15:00 to go in the fourth, 31-17 NE, Pittsburgh with 2nd & Goal from the 2...care to change that?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 23, 2005 21:44:47 GMT -5
nope
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2005 22:03:41 GMT -5
Not at all. That game was NEVER close. Yeah they cut it to 11, but the Pats had it up by 11 and they always answer when it counts. Period. I'm a Bills fan and I live in Boston and hate the Pats, but there is no doubt: best team in NFL, YES a dynasty, Brady is best QB in football, Belichick and staff are tops... I can go on.
GO HOYAS!!! BEAT THE JOHNNIES!!!
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Jan 23, 2005 23:06:20 GMT -5
I was assuming that one of the league's best rushing teams could gain two yards on three tries. Once they kicked the field goal, I figured the game was over.
My early prediction is Eagles 20, Patriots 14.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,610
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 23, 2005 23:14:40 GMT -5
I was assuming that one of the league's best rushing teams could gain two yards on three tries. Bad to assume things like that against the Patriots defense. Kinda like assuming the league's best passing team will have a field day against them.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jan 24, 2005 9:53:25 GMT -5
Anyone who is not a fan of the Eagles, and thinks they will beat the Pats hasn't watched much football this year. The Pats will win walking away. The eagles are the third best team the Pats will have played in the playoffs- by far, and the two best opponents were smoked. The Eagles fattened up on a horrendus NFC schedule.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,610
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 24, 2005 10:08:44 GMT -5
...was when that game was over yesterday...
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jan 24, 2005 10:15:57 GMT -5
If the Pats win in two weeks, they will have made their case that over the last two years they may be the best football team in history. In an age of salary cap-induced parity and in an age where some of the best American athletes play football over baseball, etc. (not the case in 1950 ), winning 30 of 32 NFL games is mind-boggling. And I think Bellichek may already be the best coach in history to have made this Pats run with so few Pro-Bowlers - and with two of those (Law and Seymore) out fot the duration of the 2005 playoffs.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 24, 2005 17:16:08 GMT -5
If the Pats win in two weeks, they will have made their case that over the last two years they may be the best football team in history. In an age of salary cap-induced parity and in an age where some of the best American athletes play football over baseball, etc. (not the case in 1950 ), winning 30 of 32 NFL games is mind-boggling. And I think Bellichek may already be the best coach in history to have made this Pats run with so few Pro-Bowlers - and with two of those (Law and Seymore) out fot the duration of the 2005 playoffs. I'd argue the salary cap/parity is an argument agains them being the best team ever. I'd say that the organization may be the best ever. From a GM/coaching standpoint, the game is more difficult now than ever, and they deserve high praise. My only caution is that with any rule change, one team tends to get it earlier than others, giving them a built in advantage. But with Parity across the league, and expansion creating more player slots (and a lower level of competition), this team, player wise, is not as good as some of the past dynasties. I don't think this takes anything away from the Pats -- it is like comparing 1970s teams to late 40s/early 50s teams in baseball. Expansion, integration, the changing of the pitching mound, the rise of turf stadiums, the draft, make the eras very hard to compare. The Patriots are the first dynasty of the FA era. But I don't think they are necessarily any better than previous dynasties as a team just because of their record.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 24, 2005 17:23:23 GMT -5
Just to provoke further thought, but what about the undeniable increase in the average athleticism and talent of the "joe average" player? You are claiming that increased roster spots is a sign of decreased talent, but I would argue that the standard of talent has actually risen over the last 30 years...that is not to say that the superstars are better than the superstars of yesteryear (although that could be argued) but that the utility player of today is vastly superior. What are your thoughts on that?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 24, 2005 17:46:24 GMT -5
That's a good point as well, Cambridge.
I think that players today have a benefit of new training, drugs, etc., that they didn't before. I fully expect that some of the past players would be much more in shape than before.
I am also comparing the Pats to say, the 80s/90s Niners, and honestly, I don't think there is as gigantic a difference there as between say, the 50s Browns and the Pats.
That said, I do agree that athletes get better, coaching gets better over time. But evaluating teams within that context is a slippery slope. Today's teams are always better, and the future's even more so.
In short, it is an unanswerable question, and there are good points on both sides. I simply do not think you can point to Ws and Ls and say this one is better without acknowledgement.
This Pats' team belongs in the discussion. But it isn't a clear and away winner.
---
Let me say something else to Edited off Pats fans. This team is NOT a dynasty yet, even if they win in two weeks. At least not by my definition.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Jan 24, 2005 17:56:28 GMT -5
...was when that game was over yesterday... I don't exactly know when that picture was taken, as the AFC Championship is kind of a blur to me. However, I think it ended when Eugene Wilson's dropped INT wasn't overturned. There probably wasn't indisputable evidence to overturn it, but it looked pretty clear to me and the announcers (after the fact) that the ball was on the ground. This also brought about the best booth moment of the day. Simms was adamant that it was a catch. However, Nantz begged to differ, and they showed Wilson going down and his hands seemingly behind the ball as it hit the ground as opposed to under it. They showed this part, and Nantz said "Now is it a catch?" Dead silence from Simms. He was bailed out by the referee being ready to make the call. After he said that the call would stand, Nantz said "I guess he saw what you saw", and I don't remember what Simms said, but it was pretty clear that Simms knew he was wrong. Again, I might not have overturned it based on a lack of "indisputability" (which I'm sure is why it stood), but that was the end of it. Oh, and for the record, to anybody who saw the term "'fro-hawk" on PTI today to describe Freddie Mitchell's hair...I called it that yesterday as soon as I saw it. Any lawyers out there know what route I need to take to copyright it?
|
|
david
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 157
|
Post by david on Jan 24, 2005 23:31:39 GMT -5
a true dynasty, for all you who doubted it before, will be born. Pats win, but do not cover the 7 point spread.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Jan 25, 2005 14:06:48 GMT -5
Dunno how people can call a team a dynasty when they can't string together three straight years of actually making the playoffs.
The Pats team that won Super Bowl XXXVI was fortunate. They peaked at the right time, and found the right quarterback for them in the middle of the season. They earned their victory, yes, but they were not a dominant team. The following season, it was back to normal for the Patriots as they missed the playoffs.
The last two seasons, however, they've been a dominant team. if they win this year, and then maybe once again in the next two seasons (but make the playoffs both times), then we can talk dynasty. A dynasty is a team that dominates its competition year-in, year-out for an extended period of time, complete with championships during most of those years. Just because parity has struck the NFL doesn't mean we have to lower the standards to "two straight seasons of dominant football". The Chicago Bulls and Dallas Cowboys of the '90s, and maybe the Yankees of the late '90s, are the last dynasties in sports. USC is well on their way, but talk to me in two years and we'll see how they're doing. If they haven't lost a game in that time, then sure.
To sum up, the Patriots are not a dynasty. If they win in Jacksonville, they are not a dynasty.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 25, 2005 14:31:45 GMT -5
To me, a dynasty is even more specific.
I think the excellence, at minimum, needs to last more than five years. I think there needs to be significant turnover in personnel.
The Lakers of the '00s -- not a dynasty. The Bulls, though, six titles in eight years (likely 8 titles if things were a bit different) with the same core but vastly different supporting casts -- dynasty.
USC? Nice run. UCLA in basketball? Dynasty.
This Pats team is a very nice team. But they are a long way from Dynasty.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,610
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 25, 2005 14:43:52 GMT -5
To me, a dynasty is even more specific. I think the excellence, at minimum, needs to last more than five years. I think there needs to be significant turnover in personnel. The Lakers of the '00s -- not a dynasty. The Bulls, though, six titles in eight years (likely 8 titles if things were a bit different) with the same core but vastly different supporting casts -- dynasty. USC? Nice run. UCLA in basketball? Dynasty. This Pats team is a very nice team. But they are a long way from Dynasty. So, I presume when they get to 5 years, the yardstick will be 6 years right? If they win now it will be 4 years and there HAS been significant turnover of personnel (Bledsoe, Milloy, Ted Washington, Damien Woody - the entire offensive line and much of the D-line and defensive backfield have pretty much turned over). While I tend to side more towards your line of thinking, I think you also have to take into account the conditions under which this has been accomplished (i.e., the salary cap which makes it far tougher to keep a team together at a high level over an extended period of time).
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jan 25, 2005 19:04:47 GMT -5
Winning three Super Bowls in four years even in the pre-FA and pre-salary cap era would qualify you as a dynasty no questionas asked. You have to be either disingenuously contrarian or retarded to actually deny the Pats the title "dynasty" if they win in two weeks. If they win, and they are not a "dynasty" then the word means nothing.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Jan 26, 2005 0:44:56 GMT -5
i'm with you there thebin. the standards being thrown around above would also preclude the early 90's cowboys and the 70's steelers. please. we're talking not talking ming dynasties, we're talking sports.
i gotta give the eagles more a shot than you do, though. IMO they are a significantly better team than the steelers--you'd be hard pressed to to pick the steelers based on a position-by-position analysis. now granted, i wont be betting against the patriots in the playoffs until further notice after '01, but i wouldn't be surprised at all if the eagles win this. i think mcnabb's maturation into a truly elite QB (1st ever with 30+ TD's and < 10 picks) might just be enough to topple your boys.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 27, 2005 19:51:28 GMT -5
So, I presume when they get to 5 years, the yardstick will be 6 years right? Gimme a break. I hardly dislike Boston Sports, and have liked this version of the Patriots. But I've had this argument with U of Miami football fans (not enough titles), USC Football fans, New England Patriot fans...and it is still the same. A dynasty, in the literal definition, is a succession of rulers. There's no succession here. Not yet. Call me after next year and I might agree. I never said that this isn't impressive. (and in fact have detailed quite the opposite in either this thread or another). The job done by the Pats front office is very impressive. Same with the coaching staff and the players. Just not a dynasty yet. My standards are high. Dynasties: Yankees, period. The US in (certain) Olympic Sports or the America's Cup. Celtics 57-69. Maybe the 50s Browns-Packers. Notre Dame Football.
|
|