LATE Super Bowl Predictions

[Hank Scorpio]

i'm glad you guys can relate to that now. there's nothing like watching a team that just goes out and gets it done with a minimum of flash or ego, year after year. 96 is definitely my fav of the yankees recent WS wins [first in my lifetime], but 98 is a close second. just the perfect season. and this pats team has now done that 2 years in a row.

CambridgeHoya said:

Haha, now I see why yankees fans had so much fun. You know I've just been joshing you Joe. It was a good game and I have much respect for the Eagles and their fans. See you next year.

[Cambridge]

The comparison between the mid-90s yanks and the patriots is very valid. Weird, but totally spot on.

[Cambridge]

Would that make the Colts the Red Sox of the NFL?

[Hank Scorpio]

not enough crushing losses. the colts are more like the Twins...people talk about how they could make noise in the playoffs every year. they never do.

CambridgeHoya said:

Would that make the Colts the Red Sox of the NFL?

[Cambridge]

I'm not so sure. Brady is undefeated against the Colts in 4 years in the NFL. Payton has never beat the Pats. Not mention that many of them occured at the last second...ie the Pats first victory over them this year.

The 2003 Red Sox set a lot of records for team offense, but their defense was suspect. They lost to the Yanks...in a classic meltdown.

Pedro=Payton
Jeter=Brady

[Hank Scorpio]

hard to make comparisons b/t football and baseball given the 7 game series vs Any Given Sunday format...but you might be on to something.

that said, I think you'd have to sub in Grady Little for Pedro in the Peyton analogy - Pedro was actually on top of his game for 7 innings, yielding only 2 mistakes to Giambi. if he leaves after 7 we're possibly looking at sox winning back to back titles. another discussion for another time....

here's how i break down the 2 teams:

Brady / Jeter - aw shucks leaders, don't wow you with stats, but are who you want with the ball with the game on the line

Rivera / Vinatieri - closers. and clutch ones (oh how i'll miss the days when Mo could go 2 innings every night in the playoffs and strike out 4 of 6, breaking the other 2 guys' bats]

Girardi/O'Neill/Brosius/Tino - Bruschi / Vrabel
Grinders. not considered superstars at all, probably will never equate their success if they left the team...but for some reason, on that team, in that system, they just produce

Clemens / Ty Law/Dillon - obligatory jerk.

i don't know the Pats as well as the Yanks, obviously, so fill in at will. but i think both teams both go a long way in proving that chemistry/game plan are as important as talent.

CambridgeHoya said:

I'm not so sure. Brady is undefeated against the Colts in 4 years in the NFL. Payton has never beat the Pats. Not mention that many of them occured at the last second...ie the Pats first victory over them this year.

The 2003 Red Sox set a lot of records for team offense, but their defense was suspect. They lost to the Yanks...in a classic meltdown.

Pedro=Payton
Jeter=Brady

[Cambridge]

Add Harrison to the jerks list...a nasty mutha who you love if he's on your team, and hate if he's not.

[TBird41]

Of course, this whole analogy falls apart when you remember that the Pats don't get to spend tens of millions of dollars more on salary than the other teams in the NFL.

Personalitywise, I'd say the Pats and the Yankees of 1996-2000 are very similar. It's just a lot more impressive what the Pats are doing than what the Yankees did.

[Hank Scorpio]

2 sides to that coin. i tend to agree with you, but here goes anyway.

1) your side - b/c of no salary advantage, in this age of parity/salary cap, doing what the patriots have done is extremely difficult b/c they don't have a financial advantage over any team.

2) flip side - since the cap was instituted in 93/94, we've had multiple three title winners in twelve years - Cowboys, Broncos, and now Patriots. St. Louis had a run where they appeared in 2 super bowls in 3 years [if not for the tuck rule, they could be labeled a dynasty as well]. a talented core kept together has exhibited a great ability to rise above the rest of the pack in a parity dominated league.

and, to defend my yanks, winning 4 titles in 6 years, with the added divisional round, is a tall order regardless of finances. i put them on par with the Pats

TBird41 said:

Of course, this whole analogy falls apart when you remember that the Pats don't get to spend tens of millions of dollars more on salary than the other teams in the NFL.

Personalitywise, I'd say the Pats and the Yankees of 1996-2000 are very similar. It's just a lot more impressive what the Pats are doing than what the Yankees did.

[TrueHoyaBlue]

I hear what you're saying, but the Broncos only won two.

[Cambridge]

Not to nitpick, but the Broncos only one two...back to back 98 & 99.

As for St. Louis, the tuck rule occured in the Pats-Raiders game, which I assume you know. I think it's a stretch to annoint the Rams a potential dynasty, considering they won one and merely got to a second. Besides, as has been pointed out numerous times...a lot of game happened after the tuck rule.

But going back over the history of the NFL, it's clear that only two team (arguably 3) have done something similar to the Pats. The Steelers and the Cowboys (and maybe the 49ers)

The Steelers' run of 4 superbowls in 6 years is very impressive. But they did it with back to back victories in '75 and '76, then back to back victories in '79 & '80. So a two year hiatus intervened.

Dallas of course had 3 titles in 4 years. Winning back to back in '93 and '94, then again in '96.

I guess you could put SF in the consideration as they won 4 titles over the course of 8 years...but there are awfully long stretches between some of those titles. More like the Olympics than a dynasty.

Anyways, no one else has come close...So we've got:

Steelers '75-'80 (4 titles in 6 years)
San Francisco '82, '85, '89, '90 (4 titles over 8 years, 2 of the titles back to back)
Pats '02-05 (3 titles in 4 years)
Dallas '93-'96 (3 titles in 4 years)

[Hank Scorpio]

oops, misspoke before, i meant three multiple title winners, not multiple three title winners.

my main point was that in 12 years since free agency in 1993, 7 of the titles were won by 3 teams, and if the rams win it in 2001 after the tuck rule game we're talking about 4 teams winning 8 of the 12.

and, had the rams beaten the raiders, 2 titles in 3 years is still very impressive. the pats were considered one by many after last year's title. their win this year puts them in another echelon, of course. i find it more remarkable still that they don't have a consensus top 5 player at any position except QB... those cowboys teams of the early 90s were absolutely loaded. hence the 96-01 yanks comparisons that the pats have.

- borat

ps - new englanders shouldn't apologize for the tuck rule, but need to accept the fact that it happened and was kind of BS. much like we yankee fans accept that jeffrey maier was BS... in both cases, a fortuitous call helped change the history of the sport [the parallels continue!]

CambridgeHoya said:

Not to nitpick, but the Broncos only one two...back to back 98 & 99.

As for St. Louis, the tuck rule occured in the Pats-Raiders game, which I assume you know. I think it's a stretch to annoint the Rams a potential dynasty, considering they won one and merely got to a second. Besides, as has been pointed out numerous times...a lot of game happened after the tuck rule.

But going back over the history of the NFL, it's clear that only two team (arguably 3) have done something similar to the Pats. The Steelers and the Cowboys (and maybe the 49ers)

The Steelers' run of 4 superbowls in 6 years is very impressive. But they did it with back to back victories in '75 and '76, then back to back victories in '79 & '80. So a two year hiatus intervened.

Dallas of course had 3 titles in 4 years. Winning back to back in '93 and '94, then again in '96.

I guess you could put SF in the consideration as they won 4 titles over the course of 8 years...but there are awfully long stretches between some of those titles. More like the Olympics than a dynasty.

Anyways, no one else has come close...So we've got:

Steelers '75-'80 (4 titles in 6 years)
San Francisco '82, '85, '89, '90 (4 titles over 8 years, 2 of the titles back to back)
Pats '02-05 (3 titles in 4 years)
Dallas '93-'96 (3 titles in 4 years)

[Cambridge]

I think there are more than a few comparisons:

The phantom tag from the 1999 ALCS, where Tim Tschida made one of the most egregious mistakes in MLB history.

Happened again just this last year vs. the Twins. Jeter missed a tag by about a foot on Jones, but got the call.

Perhaps the A-Rod play at first against the Sox. It got overturned and pretty much decided the game, if not set the tone for the rest of the game.

Same game, the Bellhorn homerun call reversal. Huge.

Anyways, I think it's clear that big "calls" or "missed calls" depending on what side of the aisle you fall on, denote a big rivarly. Every inch counts and those bounces determine the rest.

[thebin]

CambridgeHoya said:

I think there are more than a few comparisons:

The phantom tag from the 1999 ALCS, where Tim Tschida made one of the most egregious mistakes in MLB history.

Happened again just this last year vs. the Twins. Jeter missed a tag by about a foot on Jones, but got the call.

Perhaps the A-Rod play at first against the Sox. It got overturned and pretty much decided the game, if not set the tone for the rest of the game.

Same game, the Bellhorn homerun call reversal. Huge.

Anyways, I think it's clear that big "calls" or "missed calls" depending on what side of the aisle you fall on, denote a big rivarly. Every inch counts and those bounces determine the rest.

I am really not at all comfortable lumping in blown calls with blatantly correct calls and saying its a matter of perspective even to a small degree. The Bellhorn homerun and the A-Rod limp wristed running style calls are not in any way at all controversial.

[TBird41]

So Peter King says that one of the reasons that the Eagles (and McNabb) looked so bad at the end was because McNabb was sick and disoriented at the end, likely because of dehydration.

sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/02/08/mmqbte.milloy.part2/index.html

That would explain a lot (because McNabb played horribly-which is uncharacteristic) but doesn't take away from the Pats in my opinion. They beat the opponent they were facing (and they would have beaten healthy McNabb-this was an end game thing). And how could McNabb be so stupid as to allow himself to get dehydrated? It wasn't like it was 90 degrees-it was in the 50s.

[Joe Hoya]

TBird41 said:

And how could McNabb be so stupid as to allow himself to get dehydrated? It wasn't like it was 90 degrees-it was in the 50s.

Apparently he was affected a bit by the change in temperatures. It was much warmer on Sunday than it was the entire week before. That's what I read at least.

This isn't the first time he's gotten sick on the field. The other time was a road loss back in the 2002 season. The opponent?

Jacksonville.

Glad they don't play there again until 2010.

Oh right, I'm not talking about this anymore.

[thebin]

It means less to me in light of the fact that we know Brady had a 103 degree temperature (much more verifiable than McNabb's unknown condition) the night before the AFC title game and Brady DIDN'T play poorly.

[Joe Hoya]

sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs04/news/story?id=1987299

He was sick during the previous week, so it wasn't dehydration.

I'm not knocking Brady, but there's a big difference between having a high fever the night before a game and vomiting on the field (which McNabb did in 2002, and nearly did on Sunday night).

[TrueHoyaBlue]

You go to the super bowl with the team you have, not the team that you would like to have.

Joe, I like your passion, but "if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we would all have a merry Christmas" -- you put a huge damper on the achievement of the Eagles season by making excuses for why they lost, should have won. They didn't win, and hopefully for your sake they'll put it together next year.

[Cambridge]

thebin,

I wasn't making an apples to apples comparison...just pointing out that some big calls and bum calls have been made for and against the Pats and Red Sox. I wasn't making any editorial statements about the calls, but I agree with your sentiment 100%.