NFL 2010 Regular Season Discussion Thread - Page 12

Scott,

Yes, see post #316 above.  Thanks for the additional information, though -- very interesting.

I think the AFC is a much stronger conference than the NFC this year.  But as we've come to see in recent years, that doesn't always mean all that much in the Super Bowl game.

Congrats to the World Champoin Green Bay Packers.

The SB is over and my impression is that it was more the Steelers lost than GB won.  Without the turnovers, the Steelers were, if not dominant, at least had the advantage.  The penalty on the Steeler kickoff return followed by the interception was a killer.  Combine that with the fumble in the second half when the Steelers looked to be in the driver's seat and there's the game.

In fairness to GB, they scored on every turnover against the Steeler defense.

As is usually the case, the Steelers just cannot seem to play a game without digging themselves a huge hole. If your offense makes three turnovers, and your defense cannot stop the opposition from scoring on those turnovers, you will lose. Especially if your offense sputters the rest of the time.

That said, if the Steelers had to lose the Super Bowl to someone, I'm glad it was the Packers. 

It was a great Superbowl overall. It was the best halftime show I have seen in years.

Congrats to the Packers!!

and Aguilera screwed up on the lyrics to the NATIONAL ANTHEM.

i guess that's what happens when you don't lip sync

http://tv.gawker.com/#!5753404/watch-christina-aguilera-fumble-the-lyrics-to-the-national-anthem-at-super-bowl-xlv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell 

The SB is over and my impression is that it was more the Steelers lost than GB won.  Without the turnovers,....blah blah blah..
 

The only problem with that line of thought is that conveniently forgets that each turnover was a result of a good Packer defensive play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricW 

and Aguilera screwed up on the lyrics to the NATIONAL ANTHEM.

 

i guess that's what happens when you don't lip sync

 

http://tv.gawker.com/#!5753404/watch-christina-aguilera-fumble-the-lyrics-to-the-national-anthem-at-super-bowl-xlv

 I was in the the car on my way to a Super Bowl party, and listened to her sing the national anthem, and I was so confused when she screwed up the lyrics, but was relieved to find out that it was Christina who screwed them up (and not me, who was singing along in his head at the time).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick_S 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell 

The SB is over and my impression is that it was more the Steelers lost than GB won.  Without the turnovers,....blah blah blah..
 

 

The only problem with that line of thought is that conveniently forgets that each turnover was a result of a good Packer defensive play.

Not only that, the Packers took advantage of the turnovers, scoring after them.  How does committing zero turnovers to three for the other team not make them better?

And congrats to Aaron Rodgers for being the Super Bowl MVP, something even Favre didn't won, and out of the shadow of his predecessor. Now they each have 1 SB apiece.

Two great football teams with incredible history behind them. Yesterday the Green Bay Packers executed their game better than the Steelers. It was a fun game to watch with two awesome quarterbacks. I would have loved to have seen Bart Starr carry the Lombardi trophy up to the podium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick_S 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell 

The SB is over and my impression is that it was more the Steelers lost than GB won.  Without the turnovers,....blah blah blah..
 

 

The only problem with that line of thought is that conveniently forgets that each turnover was a result of a good Packer defensive play.

Yeah, that's true.  Why do I think the game was lost rather than won?  Well 3rd down efficiency was 53% Pitt, vs 46% for GB.  Neither great.  Pitt had 19 to GB's 15 first downs.  Pitt had 387 net yards to GB's 338.  The Steelers had the advantage without the turnovers.  Yeah, the turnovers were three good defensive plays, but GB could have put the game away in the first half and at least by the end of the 3rd quarter, but their receivers kept dropping balls.

I once read many years ago that the most devastating defensive play was an interception returned for a TD.  Not sure if that's still true, but it is in the SB.  With 2 minutes to go, the Steelers had a chance to win.  It shouldn't have been close at that point.

The Steelers receive the kickoff after GB's 1st quarter TD and get a good runback which is negated by a penalty.  That penalty was the play of the game.  Without it, the Steelers start in very good field position.  Bad play by the Steelers.  Than on the kickoff after GB's last score, they do it again and Pitt has to start inside the 10.  Another bad, stupid play.

Take too bad, stupid plays out of the game and I think the Steelers win, IMHO.  To me, it was more the Steelers lose than GB wins.  I wouldn't classify it as a great game.  To me, I come away from this game feeling like I did after the Steelers won the SB against Seattle.  The team that won, didn't really beat the other team.

Full disclosure, I'm an AFC fan.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick_S 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell 

The SB is over and my impression is that it was more the Steelers lost than GB won.  Without the turnovers,....blah blah blah..
 

 

The only problem with that line of thought is that conveniently forgets that each turnover was a result of a good Packer defensive play.

Take too bad, stupid plays out of the game and I think the Steelers win, IMHO.

Full disclosure, I'm an AFC fan.
 

You could just as well say that taking good Packers plays (the defensive plays that forced the turnovers as well as their offensive plays) out would have changed the outcome.  Why is any of that any different than saying "if they had run the ball better, if they had tackled better...in short, if they had been better, they would have won"?   To paraphrase what was once said about the Cowboys before they won their first Super Bowl, "if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, there'd be plenty of treats for Christmas".

The better team won.

Saying "well IF that hadn't happened then we would of WON!" is ridiculous.  It did happen.  Why didn't the steelers get a pick six?  Why didn't the steelers force a fumble?  Why didn't the steelers make that field goal?  Why didn't the steelers recover that botched punt that was fumbled.  Saying they COULD have means nothing, they didn't do it.  You can't pick and choose what would of happened based on one thing.  Because then packers fan could say "well if Wallace hadn't scored that TD then steelers would have lost by more!'  The superbowl isn't decided by who got more 3rd down completions.  If that makes you feel better about the loss, then think whatever you want.

I'm a Cowboys fan, guess what I said about their season = They sucked.  No excuses. 

May I add my 2 cents. I haven't actually seem the game - I expect to Wednesday. I have seen some of the highlights. I don't like the question - did Pit loose the game or did GB win the game. Both teams are very good. I am neither a PIT fan or a GB fan. I don't care if PIT got more first downs and ran/passed more yards than GB. What counts is the number of points scored. In many games the defense  helped to win the game - not the offense.  Certainly defense won the game in the PIT at BAL game which I think was the best game seen this season. Their the defense won the game. In the SB PIT turned the ball over  three times - no turnovers for GB. Usually a team with many turnovers will not win a game. The logic of previous posters as mentioned by the post 346 - too many IF this and that happened ---- Some people state in regards to the turnovers  that PIT was sloopy but  Sunday, it was the GB defense that played better. Most people that I have talked too said it was a very good game. It wasn't really decided until the last seconds. Bravo to BOTH teams.

The NFL should be ashamed that circa 400 people WITH tickets could not get in.

One thought that's been on my mind after seeing this year's Super Bowl (and actually, several Super Bowls over the past ten or so years) is that we don't necessarily see the best team in the NFL win it all.  But this is the system as it stands, and it's all we have at the moment.  I don't have a resolution to this, other than setting up a playoff series of sorts.  However, there is an urgency to the 'one and done' that is at times very exciting.  I realize that I can't have it both ways -- the 'one and done' is good, if a bit (to my mind) inconclusive, especially given that virtually any team can beat another once on a given day.

Considering that the Pack won at the end of the season to secure a playoff berth, and then won on the road every week, and then defeated the Steelers in the Super Bowl; I have no problem considering them the best team in the NFL.

Congrats to the Packers and their fans.

- Walter.

Great post.  This business about “oh, team x had better 3^rd down efficiency/more passing/running yards/net punt/return yards/more yards per rush/per pass/fewer yards allowed/higher quarterback rating/better record based on points scored for/against/strength of schedule/common opponents/division record/higher rating by “experts” , etc. etc. ad nauseum, therefore it should be considered better” is so much nonsense.  The team that scores the most points ON THE FIELD is champion.  PERIOD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertR 
  The team that scores the most points ON THE FIELD is champion.  PERIOD.

 

Yes, I agree.  I guess I started to go the direction I did mostly because I thought GB should have won by much more.  GB receivers had, at times, alligator arms and dropped some very catch-able passes that would have been big plays.  Pitt was lucky the game was so close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ockeghem 

One thought that's been on my mind after seeing this year's Super Bowl (and actually, several Super Bowls over the past ten or so years) is that we don't necessarily see the best team in the NFL win it all.  But this is the system as it stands, and it's all we have at the moment.  I don't have a resolution to this, other than setting up a playoff series of sorts.  However, there is an urgency to the 'one and done' that is at times very exciting.  I realize that I can't have it both ways -- the 'one and done' is good, if a bit (to my mind) inconclusive, especially given that virtually any team can beat another once on a given day.

The solution to crowning the best team as champion is simple, elegant, and works for any sport.

You crown the best team of the regular season as champion and call it a day. No need for playoffs at all.

Not as much fun though, is it?

There's a reason for the phrase "on any given Sunday".

The purpose of the regular season is qualifying for a post-season tournament to determine the champion. Whether it's single-game elimination or a best of 7 series, the better team doesn't always win. In fact, the team that wins the championship is usually the one that gets hot at the right time.

You are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Scott,

What are the chances the Lions pick up some much-needed help with free agents this year?  This morning, one sportscaster was commenting on how attractive it would be for linemen to come to Detroit to play with the likes of Suh, Bosch, and Williams (among others).  Could it be that Detroit might now be an attractive team to play for? :)

^^^

I should have included the proviso "if the contract issues are settled."  I was preceding from that premise when I posed the question.  Sorry. :)

Thanks, Scott.

I'd like to see them get one more good-to-excellent linebacker, a cornerback, and either another wide receiver or an offensive lineman.  I think Calvin Johnson's comments a few months ago got some of the players' attention, and maybe even the upper-management.  If Johnson were ever to leave, New England is a fine place for him to play. ;)

I think Suh has made other players around him better.  For one thing, he can pretty much handle anyone one-on-one, which frees up some of his neighbors to concentrate on their men as opposed to having to worry about too many two-on-ones coming at them.  I also think that he (IMO) has made Avril a better player.

I'd also like for Stafford to play an entire year -- this would be a welcome change.