- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 55,496
- Reaction score
- 26,523
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I've said this for a long time.
Pass-happy offenses which throw up tons of points don't generally win SBs. They tend to get upset by more balanced power teams with running games and tough defenses. Consider favored San Francisco losing to the Giants 15-13 in 1990 (and the Bills losing in the next game), record-setting Minnesota being upset by Atlanta in the 1998 AFCCG, and NE losing to the Giants in the 2007 SB. Occasionally a team may pull it off, such as St. Louis narrowly escaping Tennessee in the 1999 SB. But not very often.
All of these are not very good examples if you look at each individual game for instance in the 49ers-Giants game the running back fumbles with the lead with less than 3 mins. left in the game, then the Bills lose because the kicker misses a very makeable FG, Minnesota lost because a Kicker who hadn't missed all year missed a easy FG that would have put them up 10 and the Defense allowed Atlanta to score the game tying and game winning points without the offense every seeing the field, and the GTSNBM the pats were up with less than 2 min left when the defense allowed the winning score.
So please explain to me how any of those games are good examples of what your saying when every one of those teams were winning at the end of the game or had a chance to win and lost through no fault of the "pass-happy" offenses.
If our Oline gets manhandled the way it did in SB42, it doesn't matter if you pass, run, try screens you're not going to have a good day. And the offense DID score on the last drive when it had to, it just so happened that the Giants got the last good shot at a winning score.
I've said this for a long time.
Pass-happy offenses which throw up tons of points don't generally win SBs. They tend to get upset by more balanced power teams with running games and tough defenses. Consider favored San Francisco losing to the Giants 15-13 in 1990
Stop rewriting history.
The PATRIOTS had the ball last, needing 40 yards to tie the game with a FG, having all 3 timeouts left. They pissed the game away with 4 straight hail mary's for no reason.
They had 30 seconds and 40 yards would've got them a 60 yard attempt. I don't agree with the hail mary's either but chances are it wouldn't have made a difference in that situation. Too close to call if anything.
Then stop claiming the Pats didn't have a drive at the end. They clearly did have a legit chance, and failed. We got the ball back after the Giants scored, with all three timeouts to use. By the way, McDaniels called the same crappy plays/drive to end game 1 this year with the long sideline bombs, only he got bailed out this time by a miracle Stokley play.
Sometimes urinating takes me longer than 30 seconds
I've said this for a long time.
Pass-happy offenses which throw up tons of points don't generally win SBs. They tend to get upset by more balanced power teams with running games and tough defenses. Consider favored San Francisco losing to the Giants 15-13 in 1990 (and the Bills losing in the next game), record-setting Minnesota being upset by Atlanta in the 1998 AFCCG, St. Louis being upset by NE in 2001, Indy losing to NE in 2003-2004, and NE losing to the Giants in the 2007 SB. Occasionally a team may pull it off, such as St. Louis narrowly escaping Tennessee in the 1999 SB. But not very often.
.
More importantly, though, is that the teams that win the SB are almost always a good, overall team. Top 10 offense and defense, often top 3 of both. The Patriots in 07, for all those haters out there, still had a the top 4 ranked defense (both points and yards) in the NFL. It was an upset, the Patriots were the better team, but the better team doesn't always win, as we all know.
This is the key piece you aren't giving enough credit.
The 2007 team wasn't a balanced team. You could replace everything you wrote with 2001 Rams (top offense, top 3 defense), and it sounds like you'd still be confused about why the statistically superior team lost.
Citing stats to determine who was better, doesn't tell the entire picture.
Amazing how a fan base which directly experienced over-hyped 01 Rams and 03-04 Colts offenses being shut down, somehow over the next few years does a 180 and suddenly falls in love with high scoring finesse offenses which get stuffed by physical defenses. It's not about stats, it's about having a balanced pass/run philosophy. Teams know we aren't truly committed to the run and are willing to give it to us, because they know we'll go away from it.
The Rams were a juggernaut and the Pats were probably just as good. There is a reason why they split the season series (Rams won regular season game). If you play out that '01 Superbowl, I HIGHLY doubt that the Patriots would win more than 50% of the time. Just because you win the Superbowl, doesn't mean you are better (by any margin) than the team you beat (look no further than the Giants).
Amazing how a fan base which directly experienced over-hyped 01 Rams and 03-04 Colts offenses being shut down, somehow over the next few years does a 180 and suddenly falls in love with high scoring finesse offenses which get stuffed by physical defenses. It's not about stats, it's about having a balanced pass/run philosophy. Teams know we aren't truly committed to the run and are willing to give it to us, because they know we'll go away from it. It's very similar to how Belichick played dime all day against the 2001 Rams, knowing Martz wouldn't use Faulk to run it much.
Did you just say the 2001 Pats team was just as good as that 2001 Rams team? I just realized I'm wasting my time talking to a lunatic. Everyone sane considers that game to be a major upset.
From those stats alone, it's a no brainer. You aren't awarded style points, all that matters is that you score more points than your opponent. So how could you possible argue that the pre 07 offense was "better" or "preferable" to an offense that is FAR FAR more productive.