| Welcome to Da Wrestling Board. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| 2010 NFL Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 18 2010, 10:57 AM (3,051 Views) | |
| Scrooge McSuck | Jan 19 2011, 02:54 PM Post #46 |
|
I'll get you next time, toilet!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've never been a "look at the records" kind of person. Sports is driven by the underdog over-coming the odds against the heavily favored, more talented team*. If the team with the best record won every big game, then where's the drama? Sports writes it's own script, and if every game had the same predictable ending, we wouldn't watch all the time. As much as I thought the Seahawks had no business being in the playoffs, was it more to talk about saying "woah, the Seahawks beat the Saints!" rather than "Oh, the Saints beat that shit team." *-No, teams with better records don't necessarily have a more talented roster. It's just an assumption people tend to make. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Erick Von Erich | Jan 19 2011, 05:52 PM Post #47 |
|
I'm Big E and I tell it like it is
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The only team that's guaranteed a one-game home playoff choke (no matter their record) is the Kansas City Chiefs. |
| DWS Apparel Store- Buy. Consume. Obey. | |
![]() |
|
| torturedsoulv1 | Jan 19 2011, 08:00 PM Post #48 |
|
true maharajah Jinder Mahal
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Chargers are good for that also This year though, even though the Chiefs were the home team, I think most people figured the Ravens would beat them as the Ravens had the better record and the better team Patriots for all the talk of them being the best team in football, have been eliminated the last two years in their first playoff game and both were at home (Ravens last year, Jets this year.) They didn't make the playoffs in 2008 (though they did go 11-5 with Brady being hurt in Game 1 and missing the season which is impressive) So please no more dynasty talk (there was still some of that this year which is ridiculous as they have not won the Super Bowl since 2003) They have been in one Super Bowl in the last 7 years and lost to the Giants for their only loss of the year in 2007 |
![]() |
|
| Erick Von Erich | Jan 19 2011, 10:40 PM Post #49 |
|
I'm Big E and I tell it like it is
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Their last championship was actually after the 2004 season (played in January 2005). I'm no Patriots fan, but until someone comes along and can notch 3 Super Bowl titles in 4 years, you'll hear the "dynasty" talk. The 49ers were still considered a "dynasty" up until 1996 or so. If you look at their history, in the last 17 years, the Pats have only missed the playoffs 5 times. Since the Belichick/Brady duo came on the scene in 2001, they've only missed the playoffs twice. It looks like the spotlight is shifting away from New England, but I'd say their run of success and contending is nothing to take lightly. Really, there hasn't been a "dynasty" in the NFL since the Pats won 3 out of 4 years. Although if the Steelers win it this year, you'll hear that word. |
| DWS Apparel Store- Buy. Consume. Obey. | |
![]() |
|
| torturedsoulv1 | Jan 21 2011, 12:30 PM Post #50 |
|
true maharajah Jinder Mahal
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i stand corrected yes it was 2004 not 2003 I think no super bowls in the last 6 years means the dynasty is long over, especially with no playoff wins in the last 3 years As big as a Yankees fan as I am, I thought it was ridiculous that people were still talking about them as a dynasty in 2005-2006. Yes they won 4 out of 5 World Series between 1996 and 2000 (1997 being the lone year they did not). But by 2005 they already went 5 years without winning one (I know they made the playoffs every year and did lose in the WS in 2001 and 2003) but still they did not win the WS again until 2009. |
![]() |
|
| Erick Von Erich | Jan 21 2011, 01:00 PM Post #51 |
|
I'm Big E and I tell it like it is
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is a little funny. I think in all sports, if the coach and the core personnel are still around-- and they continue win championships or make the playoffs consistently over a decade or so-- then the media and fans like to toss out the "dynasty" word. With the Yankees it's a little blurry, since Girardi replaced Torre for 2009. But Jeter, Rivera and Pettite were still around from 1996 to 2009 (and Girardi was around for 96 as a player). In basketball, the current Spurs get the "dynasty" references, since they won their first NBA title in 1999 and followed up with three more in the past decade. Yet I'm pretty sure coach Greg Poppovich and Tim Duncan are the only constants in this stretch. We've singled out the Pats already... but aside from Brady and Bellichick I think their personnel has swapped out a LOT. I know they've had at least four different primary running backs since 2003. Troy Brown held down one wideout position for awhile, but guys like Deion Branch, Randy Moss and Wes Welker have rotated in. It's always tough to tell when a "dynasty" ends, exactly. Maybe some milestones: -60's Packers when Lombardi retired. -70's Dolphins when Larry Csonka went to the World Football League. -70's Steelers when Joe Green retired in 1982 (I think that was the year) -70's Cowboys in the 1981 NFC title game (I think that was "The Catch" year) -80's/90's Niners when George Seifert left. -Early 80's Redskins when Theezman broke his leg -90's Cowboys when...hmm, Barry Switzer came on board?! :) -Late 90's Donkeys when Elway retired or when Shanahan started jerking around Bubby Brister just before the '99 season. (yeah, yeah...this was just a "mini-dynasty" as it only lasted two years. But from 96-98 they fielded basically the same team and had their best success). |
| DWS Apparel Store- Buy. Consume. Obey. | |
![]() |
|
| torturedsoulv1 | Jan 22 2011, 01:38 PM Post #52 |
|
true maharajah Jinder Mahal
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To me once you go 5 years without winning a championship, the dynasty is over I don't care if it's the same coach or what players are the same Just my opinion obviously |
![]() |
|
| Scrooge McSuck | Jan 22 2011, 03:19 PM Post #53 |
|
I'll get you next time, toilet!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have to agree. A dynasty is only considered one for numerous championships won with as little distance between them in time as possible. Yankees 1996-2001 = Dynasty. Red Sox 2004-2007 = Not Dynasty. Chicago Bulls 1996-1998 = Dynasty. Spurs 1999-2008 = Not Dynasty. |
| |
![]() |
|
| torturedsoulv1 | Jan 23 2011, 08:13 PM Post #54 |
|
true maharajah Jinder Mahal
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's what happens when you fall behind 24-0 Decent comeback but in the end the Jets took too much time to score that last TD and then the Steelers get not one but two first downs and run the clock out Defense sucked in the first half and at the end of the game Playcalling before the safety was horrendous too, 2 and goal from the 1, pass, 3rd and goal from the 1, pass 4th and goal from the 1, run? sure they got the safety and then a TD on the free kick drive, but that wasted precious minutes |
![]() |
|
| Erick Von Erich | Jan 24 2011, 10:13 AM Post #55 |
|
I'm Big E and I tell it like it is
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Steelers-Packers is what the NFL needs, right now. After catering to fantasy football for the last 5 or 6 years, then cutting back on contact and tackling, the league needs something to re-establish its older roots. At least on paper. It's not Ray Nitschke going up against Franco's Army, but a Super Bowl pitting the league's two more tradition-rich franchises in a first-ever championship meeting should help boost interest and ratings. Of course the whole plan blows up if the Super Bowl sucks, or if the lockout goes through next season. |
| DWS Apparel Store- Buy. Consume. Obey. | |
![]() |
|
| torturedsoulv1 | Jan 24 2011, 03:10 PM Post #56 |
|
true maharajah Jinder Mahal
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would agree with you except for one thing I am a Jets fan So fuck the Steelers and their tradition I'd rather have a coach with a foot fetish than a QB that chases college girls when he has 2 Super Bowl rings anyday |
![]() |
|
| Erick Von Erich | Jan 24 2011, 03:56 PM Post #57 |
|
I'm Big E and I tell it like it is
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So....you're sayin' you'll be pulling for Green Bay?! In the meantime, you will always have fond memories of Vinny and the '98 Jets. Or Jackson Todd and the '82 Jets. Or Sanchez and the '09 Jets. All bullshittin' and needling aside, there's no reason to think the Jets will not make the playoffs next year. They're a good team. They'll be back. |
| DWS Apparel Store- Buy. Consume. Obey. | |
![]() |
|
| torturedsoulv1 | Jan 24 2011, 08:29 PM Post #58 |
|
true maharajah Jinder Mahal
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I assume you mean Richard Todd when you say Jackson Todd, unless that is meant as a joke. If it was a joke, I don't get it Not pulling for Green Bay either. Have zero rooting interest and this may be one of the rare times I don't watch the Super Bowl. Last time I didn't watch was Raiders-Bucs in 2002 for the same reason. I missed the Rams beating the Titans in 1999, but that was because I was on a flight home from a business trip that was delayed, so I missed the game. I think those are the only 2 I have missed since I started watching football which was in '77 when the Cowboys destroyed the Broncos Last year I was pulling for the Saints since they had never won a Super Bowl before. Did the same when Arizone played Pittsburgh a couple of years ago. Unlike baseball, where as a diehard Yankees fan I would never root for the Mets, I am not a diehard Jets fan. So when the Giants beat the Patriots 3 years ago, I was rooting for them since they are a NY Team. |
![]() |
|
| Scrooge McSuck | Jan 24 2011, 08:43 PM Post #59 |
|
I'll get you next time, toilet!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not into either team, but two history-rich teams meeting for the first time in th Super Bowl is a pretty cover to a book that will be a success regardless of quality. Ratings will be wonderful, no matter what. It's just this time, it's two teams a lot of people care about,spanning generations, rather than a feel good story (Saints) or a team with little national exposure or interest (Bucaneers). |
| |
![]() |
|
| torturedsoulv1 | Jan 25 2011, 01:56 AM Post #60 |
|
true maharajah Jinder Mahal
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
While I agree with you that this is a history-rich super bowl, the Steelers have played the Cowboys in previous super bowls and they are certainly rich in history also Yes the Packers have been around longer than the Cowboys, but I think the Cowboys do qualify as a history rich team. Maybe not as much when the teams met in the late 70s for the Super Bowl, but certainly by the time the Cowboys handed the Steelers their only Super Bowl defeat in the mid 90s. |
![]() |
|
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Sports · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




5:32 PM Jul 10