OT: Official 2021 Tompa Bay Gronkaneers Thread

[Deus Irae]

There are always exceptions. The Pats won in 2018 after losing in 2017. But in general, the SB loser has a really tough time making it back to the SB.

Yeah, there's data and everything.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Buccaneers have shown some interest in free agent cornerback Richard Sherman.

Bucs coach Bruce Arians confirmed today that General Manager Jason Licht has touched base with Sherman when asked about a report from Tom Pelissero of NFL Network that the Bucs contacted Sherman after cornerback Sean Murphy-Bunting suffered a Week One injury.

Bruce Arians confirms Buccaneers have touched base with Richard Sherman - ProFootballTalk

 

[amfootball]

Bruce Arians confirms Buccaneers have touched base with Richard Sherman - ProFootballTalk

Smart move if they can sign him cheap.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Call it the result of a small sample size, but only 2 super bowl losers ever went on to win it the next year and one of those teams had the GOAT.

Three teams...71 Cowboys, 72 Dolphins, 18 Patriots.

I think the idea that Super Bowl losers are more disadvantaged than other teams is a myth. The odds of winning a Super Bowl is difficult.

In the 1970s, the Vikings lost 3 Super Bowls in four years. The "Super Bowl hangover" clearly was not the cause of them not winning after a loss; they made it all the way back and won their conference.

Dallas lost in 70 and won in 71. Then they lost in 75 abut won in 77. Looks more like randomness than the idea they just couldn't win in 76.

In the 1980s, the Broncos lost 3 in four years. They were never the better team, as has been pointed out. But their failure to win wasn't due to any curse or extra problems; they did win the conference three times.

We know all about the Bills.

The salary cap era has a different set of challenges. No team has won back-to-back in 16 years; it's very difficult for many reasons.

I'm not even getting into all the Super Bowl losers who didn't make the Super Bowl the next year but still contended and made it deep into the playoffs.

---

To date there have been 55 Super Bowl losers. The following (12) made it all the way back to at least the conference championship game. Of those (8) won the conference championship; of those, 3 won the Super Bowl. Seems about right statistically, even with that stretch in the 80s/90s where the AFC was terrible.

1968 Raiders
1971 Cowboys
1972 Dolphins
1974 Vikings
1977 Vikings
1985 Dolphins
1988 Broncos
1992 Bills
1993 Bills
1994 Bills
2013 Patriots
2018 Patriots

It's more difficult in the salary cap era for a handful of reasons...not just competition, but also a lot of these teams lose their players to free agency or have loaded up for a short window of competition. It was rare pre-salary cap for Super Bowl losers to miss the playoffs; now it isn't so rare.

 

[venecol]

Three teams...71 Cowboys, 72 Dolphins, 18 Patriots.

I think the idea that Super Bowl losers are more disadvantaged than other teams is a myth. The odds of winning a Super Bowl is difficult.

In the 1970s, the Vikings lost 3 Super Bowls in four years. The "Super Bowl hangover" clearly was not the cause of them not winning after a loss; they made it all the way back and won their conference.

Dallas lost in 70 and won in 71. Then they lost in 75 abut won in 77. Looks more like randomness than the idea they just couldn't win in 76.

In the 1980s, the Broncos lost 3 in four years. They were never the better team, as has been pointed out. But their failure to win wasn't due to any curse or extra problems; they did win the conference three times.

We know all about the Bills.

The salary cap era has a different set of challenges. No team has won back-to-back in 16 years; it's very difficult for many reasons.

I'm not even getting into all the Super Bowl losers who didn't make the Super Bowl the next year but still contended and made it deep into the playoffs.

---

To date there have been 55 Super Bowl losers. The following (12) made it all the way back to at least the conference championship game. Of those (7) won the conference championship; of those, 3 won the Super Bowl. Seems about right statistically, even with that stretch in the 80s/90s where the AFC was terrible.

1968 Raiders
1971 Cowboys
1972 Dolphins
1974 Vikings
1977 Vikings
1985 Dolphins
1988 Broncos
1992 Bills
1993 Bills
1994 Bills
2013 Patriots
2018 Patriots

It's more difficult in the salary cap era for a handful of reasons...not just competition, but also a lot of these teams lose their players to free agency or have loaded up for a short window of competition. It was rare pre-salary cap for Super Bowl losers to miss the playoffs; now it isn't so rare.

This is all wrong. There are eight teams in bold.

 

[Deus Irae]

Three teams...71 Cowboys, 72 Dolphins, 18 Patriots.

I think the idea that Super Bowl losers are more disadvantaged than other teams is a myth. The odds of winning a Super Bowl is difficult.

In the 1970s, the Vikings lost 3 Super Bowls in four years. The "Super Bowl hangover" clearly was not the cause of them not winning after a loss; they made it all the way back and won their conference.

Dallas lost in 70 and won in 71. Then they lost in 75 abut won in 77. Looks more like randomness than the idea they just couldn't win in 76.

In the 1980s, the Broncos lost 3 in four years. They were never the better team, as has been pointed out. But their failure to win wasn't due to any curse or extra problems; they did win the conference three times.

We know all about the Bills.

The salary cap era has a different set of challenges. No team has won back-to-back in 16 years; it's very difficult for many reasons.

I'm not even getting into all the Super Bowl losers who didn't make the Super Bowl the next year but still contended and made it deep into the playoffs.

---

To date there have been 55 Super Bowl losers. The following (12) made it all the way back to at least the conference championship game. Of those (7) won the conference championship; of those, 3 won the Super Bowl. Seems about right statistically, even with that stretch in the 80s/90s where the AFC was terrible.

1968 Raiders
1971 Cowboys
1972 Dolphins
1974 Vikings
1977 Vikings
1985 Dolphins
1988 Broncos
1992 Bills
1993 Bills
1994 Bills
2013 Patriots
2018 Patriots

It's more difficult in the salary cap era for a handful of reasons...not just competition, but also a lot of these teams lose their players to free agency or have loaded up for a short window of competition. It was rare pre-salary cap for Super Bowl losers to miss the playoffs; now it isn't so rare.

God bless, and all, but that's one hell of a goalpost moving maneuver.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

God bless, and all, but that's one hell of a goalpost moving maneuver.

How so? If you were making a specific point, or data point, about Super Bowl losers, I wasn't responding to that. It's more about the general performance of Super Bowl losers the next season.

 

[Deus Irae]

How so? If you were making a specific point, or data point, about Super Bowl losers, I wasn't responding to that. It's more about the general performance of Super Bowl losers the next season.

People made the point about Super Bowl losers going on to win the Super Bowl. You shifted the argument from that. The argument you shifted to is very weak, too (I mean, you have to count the Bills in order to keep if from being laughable, and we all know the bizarre reality of 13 straight NFC victories impacted that Bills run), but it does nothing to change the first argument. I mean, if you take away that Bills run, both because of the streak and because it happened only at the very beginning of FA, before it had really become a thing, there's a starker reality (taking your list as accurate, as I've not double checked it):

In the era of free agency, it's taken a Brady-led team to even make it back to the conference championship, never mind getting back to, or winning, the Super Bowl.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

People made the point about Super Bowl losers going on to win the Super Bowl. You shifted the argument from that. The argument you shifted to is very weak, too (I mean, you have to count the Bills in order to keep if from being laughable, and we all know the bizarre reality of 13 straight NFC victories impacted that Bills run), but it does nothing to change the first argument. I mean, if you take away that Bills run, both because of the streak and because it happened only at the very beginning of FA, before it had really become a thing, there's a starker reality (taking your list as accurate, as I've not double checked it):

In the era of free agency, it's taken a Brady-led team to even make it back to the conference championship, never mind getting back to, or winning, the Super Bowl.

Okay, fair enough. That point is a fact, so there's no disputing it. What I'm looking at is whether or not this is just some normal statistical noise (lack of Super Bowl losers winning the next year) or if there's anything beyond it. Kind of like the idea that a league leader in passing yards loses Super Bowls or regular season MVPs are cursed, etc.

I don't see the causation that Super Bowl losers aren't going on to win the Super Bowl because they're Super Bowl losers. So, yes, I disagree that there's any causation other than randomness. I think the past results show that Super Bowl losers often don't win simply because they're not good enough to win, or they don't win because they are good enough to win, but they didn't win for whatever reason, including luck, like many other contenders. And finally, as is the case with the Broncos and Bills, it may be that a Super Bowl loser simply wasn't an actual championship contender despite being the conference's best...though I think that doesn't apply to the modern NFL. In other words: I think that right now, there's no curse or specific "loserness" or extra disadvantage to being a Super Bowl loser.

That's fine if we disagree. Or maybe that's not a point you were making to begin with. Again, I'm just looking at with the understanding and acknowledgment that Super Bowl losers have historically not won many Super Bowls the next year.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Was Richard Sherman any good last year? Not sure if he dropped off but was still a solid, non-elite level or if he fell off a cliff.

 

[Deus Irae]

Okay, fair enough. That point is a fact, so there's no disputing it. What I'm looking at is whether or not this is just some normal statistical noise (lack of Super Bowl losers winning the next year) or if there's anything beyond it. Kind of like the idea that a league leader in passing yards loses Super Bowls or regular season MVPs are cursed, etc.

I don't see the causation that Super Bowl losers aren't going on to win the Super Bowl because they're Super Bowl losers. So, yes, I disagree that there's any causation other than randomness. I think the past results show that Super Bowl losers often don't win simply because they're not good enough to win, or they don't win because they are good enough to win, but they didn't win for whatever reason, including luck, like many other contenders. And finally, as is the case with the Broncos and Bills, it may be that a Super Bowl loser simply wasn't an actual championship contender despite being the conference's best...though I think that doesn't apply to the modern NFL. In other words: I think that right now, there's no curse or specific "loserness" or extra disadvantage to being a Super Bowl loser.

That's fine if we disagree. Or maybe that's not a point you were making to begin with. Again, I'm just looking at with the understanding and acknowledgment that Super Bowl losers have historically not won many Super Bowls the next year.

It's clear that there are multiple causes to the failure of both SB winners and SB losers. I think it's also obvious why the SB winner would be more likely to win the next season than the SB loser, and it's right there in the labels.

I would assert that there are obvious reasons why those teams don't win, that they are the sort that would absolutely prove out as valid over the course of time, and that they are significant enough to make a huge difference of the course of time. From the need to pay more to keep the players, to losing key players despite a willingness to give some level of pay increase, to more injuries and more of a general toll taken on the body, to offseasons thrown out of whack by all the non-football stuff that comes into play, to high end players aging out/retiring, etc.., I think that there is just no question that both SB teams are at a disadvantage.

But I would also acknowledge that it would be easy to see where exceptions would come from, and that more advances in physical rehab and prep will serve to lessen the significance of some of the reasons, as we move forward.

 

[Deus Irae]

We've signed LB Elijah Ponder to the practice squad.

 

[Deus Irae]

#Bucs coach Bruce Arians on Ronald Jones missing a blitz pick up. "You can't have those mental errors.''

 

[Deus Irae]

"I think we're getting a ton of pressure...but yeah, I'd like to see more sacks,'' Bucs coach Bruce Arians said of his defense being ranked 31st in the NFL with two sacks.

 

[Deus Irae]

#Bucs coach Bruce Arians says several players are in "MRI tubes,'' including Jaydon Mickens but he doesn't expect any injuries to be serious.

 

[Deus Irae]

Bruce Arians on GM Jason Licht contacting Pro Bowl CB Richard Sherman. "I coach the ones we got and let (Licht) hand;e the rest...If it's the right fit, it's the right fit and we'll move on it.''

 

[Deus Irae]

On Ronald Jones: "His mind is fine, it's just his play isn't as good as it should be."

 

[Deus Irae]

Fun with Tom Brady’s 6-yard run at age 44: He has the lowest career rush average of any player with 600+ carries, and if his next nine runs were 99-yard touchdowns, he’d still have the lowest average. “That’s not one of my things.”

 

[Deus Irae]

Snap counts are out for Bucs-Falcons. On offense, a closer split between Leonard Fournette and Ronald Jones, with Giovani Bernard playing only six snaps. Josh Wells with eight as a jumbo TE/sixth OL:

 

[Deus Irae]

Defensive snap counts for Bucs vs. Falcons show how they took it easy on Jordan Whitehead, getting 15 plays off in his first game back from injury. Vita Vea cameos on offense for second straight game: