PDA

View Full Version : The 08 NFC Champion will be the worst superbowl team ever bandwagon


osi+ap=allshallperish
10-23-2007, 07:15 PM
This a thread for all who realize that whichever team represents the NFC in the superbowl will be the worst team to ever play in a superbowl, be it the anyone, from the Rams to the Cowboys. Discuss Div 1-AA, I mean the NFL subdivision.

Tubby
10-23-2007, 08:27 PM
I dont think you give enough credit to the Cowboys

yodabear
10-23-2007, 11:54 PM
ARE U sAYING THE COWBOYS ARE THE BEST AND THE RAMS ARE THE WORST. OH NO, U DID NOT JUST DO THAT. YES WE CAN!

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 12:11 AM
I dont think you give enough credit to the Cowboys

They barely beat the bills and vikes, lost to new England and only beat us by ten in a game where our top defender got hurt, our top runner got hurt, strahan wasn't yet in game shape and spags hadn't yet figured out what to do with kiwi, not to mention that we didn't have our top 3 corners in that game, that's not a team that screams anything more than worst superbowl loser ever. Come playoff time I expect to see the NFC reach a new level of mediocrity.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 12:15 AM
ARE U sAYING THE COWBOYS ARE THE BEST AND THE RAMS ARE THE WORST. OH NO, U DID NOT JUST DO THAT. YES WE CAN!

I BELIEVE!!! Rams are only 3 games out, right? I'm sure they could still win the west, I could see them going 6-10, which should be enough to win the west this year. And once the playoffs start the other teams won't be much less crappy.

bigbluedefense
10-24-2007, 12:07 PM
you might want to edit the name of the thread, because it misinterprets the point of this thread, and people will automatically shun it as homerish dribble.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 12:17 PM
you might want to edit the name of the thread, because it misinterprets the point of this thread, and people will automatically shun it as homerish dribble.

Why? I'm recognizing that my team sucks as well.

BTW this isn't the article I was talking about, I'll be posting that later as it is saved on my friends computer and I accidentally deleted my copy.

CannedToast
10-24-2007, 12:19 PM
you might want to edit the name of the thread, because it misinterprets the point of this thread, and people will automatically shun it as homerish dribble.

That's actually exactly what I did... good call.

Addict
10-24-2007, 12:32 PM
lions bandwagon

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/lions.jpg

seems full.

Turtlepower
10-24-2007, 12:35 PM
http://www.snoopy.com/comics/peanuts/greatpumpkin/images/scene_3_large.gif

Browns Bandwagon for me. I think I've been fooled again.

bearsfan_51
10-24-2007, 12:36 PM
I'm inclined to agree. There isn't a team in the NFC that I would classify as better than good.

bigbluedefense
10-24-2007, 12:38 PM
I'm inclined to agree. There isn't a team in the NFC that I would classify as better than good.

having that said though, is there really any team in the AFC other than the Colts and Pats that can't lose on any given sunday to an NFC team?

I think its not that the AFC is so much better than the NFC, but moreso that the AFC has both Brady and Peyton, and because of that, those 2 teams are just a step ahead of anyone else in the league.

Take those 2 teams away, and the AFC isn't that much different from the NFC.

But of course, because those 2 teams are in the AFC, theyre the better division.

Turtlepower
10-24-2007, 12:40 PM
I'm inclined to agree. There isn't a team in the NFC that I would classify as better than good.

I love how this point is brought up every year in almost every sport (MLB NL, NBA Eastern Conference), but they end up winning their championship (Cardinals, Miami Heat). I think that it is best to wait until the playoffs to see who is really a contender and who is a pretender.

Jughead10
10-24-2007, 12:42 PM
having that said though, is there really any team in the AFC other than the Colts and Pats that can't lose on any given sunday to an NFC team?

I think its not that the AFC is so much better than the NFC, but moreso that the AFC has both Brady and Peyton, and because of that, those 2 teams are just a step ahead of anyone else in the league.

Take those 2 teams away, and the AFC isn't that much different from the NFC.

But of course, because those 2 teams are in the AFC, theyre the better division.

This is true. The Jaguars, even with Garrard, were considered to be one of the better AFC teams. Top 5 in that conference. Are they any better than the Cowboys or even the Packers or Giants? I don't really think so.

Addict
10-24-2007, 12:42 PM
having that said though, is there really any team in the AFC other than the Colts and Pats that can't lose on any given sunday to an NFC team?

I think its not that the AFC is so much better than the NFC, but moreso that the AFC has both Brady and Peyton, and because of that, those 2 teams are just a step ahead of anyone else in the league.

Take those 2 teams away, and the AFC isn't that much different from the NFC.

But of course, because those 2 teams are in the AFC, theyre the better division.

QB Depth is horrible right now... it's manning and brady then a huge gaping hole and then Palmer and... Romo I guess... other than that lots of young talented kids...

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 12:45 PM
having that said though, is there really any team in the AFC other than the Colts and Pats that can't lose on any given sunday to an NFC team?

I think its not that the AFC is so much better than the NFC, but moreso that the AFC has both Brady and Peyton, and because of that, those 2 teams are just a step ahead of anyone else in the league.

Take those 2 teams away, and the AFC isn't that much different from the NFC.

But of course, because those 2 teams are in the AFC, theyre the better division.

I completely agree that the colts and pats are the only teams in the very good to elite category in the league but even without them there are at least a few teams I'd call good.

Addict
10-24-2007, 12:49 PM
I completely agree that the colts and pats are the only teams in the very good to elite category in the league but even without them there are at least a few teams I'd call good.

I think you mean to say 'a tiny little bit better than the rest of the pack, but only because the pack is terrible'.

Jughead10
10-24-2007, 01:00 PM
*shrug*

the AFC holds a current 14-12 lead in play, 3 of those wins came from Indy and New England (saints, bucs and cowboys). i don't buy that the saints could beat anyone in the AFC right now (they lost both of their AFC games), i don't think tampa has a win against the AFC if not for Vince getting hurt, and we've already seen that the best team in the NFC doesn't stack up at all with one fo the two best teams in the AFC.

i'm not suggesting that the conferences are light years apart, but i don't think they're as close as you'd like to believe.

We know the Cowboys don't stack up with the Pats. That was why it is suggested besides the Pats and Colts who are clearly the best, the AFC isn't nearly that impressive. Cowboys vs. the Steelers, Jags, or anyone in the west and you have yourself a game I think the Cowboys could easily win. No one can convicne me that Pitt is better than Dallas.

bigbluedefense
10-24-2007, 01:02 PM
*shrug*

the AFC holds a current 14-12 lead in play, 3 of those wins came from Indy and New England (saints, bucs and cowboys). i don't buy that the saints could beat anyone in the AFC right now (they lost both of their AFC games), i don't think tampa has a win against the AFC if not for Vince getting hurt, and we've already seen that the best team in the NFC doesn't stack up at all with one fo the two best teams in the AFC.

i'm not suggesting that the conferences are light years apart, but i don't think they're as close as you'd like to believe.

The Saints can't beat the NFC, let alone the AFC.

But put the Packers against the Titans, or Redskins against the Bengals etc...are they really that far off? I think the NFC has a legitimate chance of winning both of those games.

Jughead10
10-24-2007, 01:04 PM
nor is anyone suggesting that. but then, how is that relevant? shouldn't we be comparing the best the conference has against the best the conference has? why would we take the nfc's best and suggest that because they're about as good as the AFC's 3-5 best, the conferences are really pretty similar?

i don't buy for a second that whoever the nfc's 5th best team is, they'd do all that well against the jags, for example.

I do. Washington could easily beat the Jaguars for exmaple. At least in my opinion.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 01:05 PM
We know the Cowboys don't stack up with the Pats. That was why it is suggested besides the Pats and Colts who are clearly the best, the AFC isn't nearly that impressive. Cowboys vs. the Steelers, Jags, or anyone in the west and you have yourself a game I think the Cowboys could easily win. No one can convicne me that Pitt is better than Dallas.

meh, the cowboys can beat a lot of teams but you don't have to be great to spread them out and carve them up. Steelers on the otherhand don't have any horribly obvious faults when they're playing well, so to me they're clearly better.

RyanLeaf#1
10-24-2007, 01:06 PM
I do. Washington could easily beat the Jaguars for exmaple. At least in my opinion.

I agree I think the Skins could definitely beat the Jags.

Jughead10
10-24-2007, 01:07 PM
meh, the cowboys can beat a lot of teams but you don't have to be great to spread them out and carve them up. Steelers on the otherhand don't have any horribly obvious faults when they're playing well, so to me they're clearly better.

Steelers have plenty of faults. Playing from a defecit for starters. They aren't the same dominating pound the ball team anymore. And when Ben throws more than 30 passes like most QBs have to, his team is 3-7 or 3-10 in his career. Can't remember which one.

detknowitall
10-24-2007, 01:08 PM
Clearly your too young to remember a 49ers/Broncos Superbowl. The Broncos were atrocious. It wasnt a question who was going to win. Just how much of a hurting Montana was going to kill Denver. Final Sccore 55 to 10

bigbluedefense
10-24-2007, 01:11 PM
again, you're comparing top tier nfc teams to mid tier afc teams. does ANYONE in their right mind think the bengals are better than average in the afc right now? if you rank both conferences 1-16 and match 1 vs 1, and 2 vs 2, etc., i think the afc comes out well ahead in games won.

well, 2 of the top 5 afc teams we've already concluded can beat the NFC rather easily.

So let's take the remaining 3 and compare them to the NFC (by current record).

Pittsburgh
Tennesee
Jacksonville

Vs

Giants
Panthers
Redskins

(again, we don't include the 2 best NFC teams by record to make it fair)

I think the Giants have a legitimate chance if they sustain their current play to beat any of those 3 teams. I also feel the same way about the Redskins. I don't know about the Panthers though because of their qb situation. But I think that its not that far off when you compare the rest of the divisions to each other.

Jughead10
10-24-2007, 01:11 PM
ugh. the skins are horrible on offense and have benefitted on defense by playing one of the easiest schedules i've ever seen. unless you think beating miami, arizona and a disgusting eagles team is indicative of a great team? or maybe beating the equally offensively inept giants early in the season? they lost to the only team they played that i think is any good (green bay).

Who have the Steelers beaten? One could say the Jaguars are equally offensively inept. Equally offensively inept Giants? Giants have never been offensively inept at any point in this season.

Giantsfan1080
10-24-2007, 01:11 PM
Last time I checked the Steelers went into Arizona(one of the bottom tiered NFC teams) and lost.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 01:12 PM
Clearly your too young to remember a 49ers/Broncos Superbowl. The Broncos were atrocious. It wasnt a question who was going to win. Just how much of a hurting Montana was going to kill Denver. Final Sccore 55 to 10

I do, if only thanks to the simspons, but i'd still take those broncos over the packers, giants, cowboys or skins, the nfc's top 4. I mean the bucs and lions have a case for being in tue nfc's top 6 for christ's sake.

bigbluedefense
10-24-2007, 01:13 PM
ugh. the skins are horrible on offense and have benefitted on defense by playing one of the easiest schedules i've ever seen. unless you think beating miami, arizona and a disgusting eagles team is indicative of a great team? or maybe beating the equally offensively inept giants early in the season? they lost to the only team they played that i think is any good (green bay).

their defense has shut down some quality offenses. Green Bay only won because of their defense, and they dismantled the Lions offense. They also did a good job against our offense which is currently ranked 6 in the league.

They have issues offensively, but the Redskins defense is no fluke. Theyre legitimately good.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 01:16 PM
Last time I checked the Steelers went into Arizona(one of the bottom tiered NFC teams) and lost.

the didn't come to play that game, sure that's a bad sign, but they were playing against some coaches who knew their players as well as the steelers coaches and if they come to play and so do the cowboys I'm still taking the steelers to win that game.

Turtlepower
10-24-2007, 01:16 PM
I do, if only thanks to the simspons, but i'd still take those broncos over the packers, giants, cowboys or skins, the nfc's top 4. I mean the bucs and lions have a case for being in tue nfc's top 6 for christ's sake.

Seriously? One of the worst teams in the AFC would beat the best teams in the NFC. I say the Broncos will be happy having 7 wins the way they are playing this year.

Jughead10
10-24-2007, 01:19 PM
yeah, they looked FANTASTIC early in the season when i was subjected to every nfc east game that was played. i know running fof 30+ on the jets, falcons and 49ers may seem impressive, but i've never witnessed worse offensive play then i saw in the first 4 weeks when they played the eagles, redskins and cowboys (outside of the 49ers/Cardinals "game").

They didn't look fantastic at all the first two games, but it was never because of the offense. They also put 30+ on the Cowboys. You said they were offensively inept and that is just not true in the least.

But that doesn't answer about the Steelers who might be the most overrated team in the league.

Turtlepower
10-24-2007, 01:25 PM
If the Patriots or the Colts are not in the Super Bowl, than the NFC wins it.

bigbluedefense
10-24-2007, 01:29 PM
i don't buy that any of those NFC teams beat any of those AFC teams, assuming both are healthy. last week? *shrug* i think three of those teams not having their starting qb skews results, but even then, i have a tough time believeing the nfc wins 2 of those games.

again, i'm not suggesting the afc is winning 49-3. and i'm not suggesting that 10 times out of 10 the afc wins. but i think, on a team by team basis, the afc teams are, largely, better than their nfc counterparts.

on a sidenote, i find it interesting that the nfc east is the only conference seriously being defended, and that nfc east fans are the only ones doing the defending. just saying.

thats fair enough. i think the gripe us NFC fans have is the notion that we have no chance against any AFC team. that is simply not true. we can hang with any team not named the Colts or Patriots.

And as for the NFC East, hey lets face it, outside of the NFC East and the Packers, the rest of the NFC is nothing to brag about.

Jughead10
10-24-2007, 01:33 PM
weren't newman and henry out in that game?



they dropped a game to the cardinals. the colts last year dropped to the texans, one of the more mediocre teams in the league. does that mean they're the msot overrated team ever? give me something other a single loss.

Henry played. Newman didn't.

It's not just the single loss. But you knocked the skins for barely beating the Cards. Yet the Steelers lost to them, and haven't beaten a good team yet.

MaddHatter
10-24-2007, 01:34 PM
I hope you're joking - Last Years Bears are among just some recent teams that I would say are worse then those leading the NFC right now. The Cowboys/Giants/Packers all are better then several past NFC Championship teams.

Hurricane Ditka
10-24-2007, 01:41 PM
You realize the 08 NFC Champion won't be crowned until is season and a half from now.

Jughead10
10-24-2007, 01:49 PM
i also knocked the skins for beating several other terrible teams and for having a bad offense. i'm not suggesting the steelers are the best team ever, simply that, from observation (about 3 full games and some partials) from each team, the steelers are a better team than the redskins.

We'll see. I think the Steelers get exposed as the season goes on. They can't run like they used to and Ben has never been able to put a team on his back and pass the ball a significant amount without turning it over a bunch.

McBain
10-24-2007, 02:01 PM
i think this is a little pre-mature.. give teams some time to grab some momentum and maybe find a rhythm... just because no team has really stood out doesn't mean that one won't.

bearsfan_51
10-24-2007, 02:19 PM
I hope you're joking - Last Years Bears are among just some recent teams that I would say are worse then those leading the NFC right now. The Cowboys/Giants/Packers all are better then several past NFC Championship teams.
Based on what?

bearsfan_51
10-24-2007, 02:21 PM
Last time I checked the Steelers went into Arizona(one of the bottom tiered NFC teams) and lost.
Last time I checked the Cardinals, when they have good QB play, are one of the better teams in the NFC.

someone447
10-24-2007, 02:24 PM
Based on what?

Rex Grossman was your QB...

I kid, I kid, as much as I hate the bears, they were quite good last year.

But I think they are about equal to the Cowboys, Packers, and Giants this year.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 02:28 PM
Seriously? One of the worst teams in the AFC would beat the best teams in the NFC. I say the Broncos will be happy having 7 wins the way they are playing this year.

I'm not talking about this years broncos.

MaddHatter
10-24-2007, 02:31 PM
Based on what?

THE most one dimensional team I have ever seen... When Hester and your Defense are the top two scorers on your team (sarcasm but not far off) you are in trouble.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 02:32 PM
Rex Grossman was your QB...

I kid, I kid, as much as I hate the bears, they were quite good last year.

But I think they are about equal to the Cowboys, Packers, and Giants this year.

Last years bears would kill us. They'd rape our passing attack and pound our run defence

bearsfan_51
10-24-2007, 02:33 PM
Rex Grossman was your QB...

I kid, I kid, as much as I hate the bears, they were quite good last year.

But I think they are about equal to the Cowboys, Packers, and Giants this year.
Sure our QB play sucked, but you can find flaws on all of those teams.


I would be willing to bet that ONE of those teams will develop to the point of being as good, maybe even better, than the Bears were last year. At this point though they are all teams that have started off well but have shown severe flaws that could really hurt them down the stretch.

But none of them have proven that yet. And for someone to make the claim that all three are ALREADY better than a team that won 15 games last year is either homerish, dumb, or both. At this point last year the Bears were undefeated and absolutely destroying people.

bearsfan_51
10-24-2007, 02:34 PM
THE most one dimensional team I have ever seen... When Hester and your Defense are the top two scorers on your team (sarcasm but not far off) you are in trouble.
So much trouble that we made the Superbowl.

But the Cowboys winning 6 games so far this year...much more impressive.

Giantsfan1080
10-24-2007, 02:34 PM
Last time I checked the Cardinals, when they have good QB play, are one of the better teams in the NFC.

You could say that about a lot of teams.

Turtlepower
10-24-2007, 02:35 PM
Last years bears would kill us. They'd rape our passing attack and pound our run defence

You just don't like the Giants, do you? =D

MaddHatter
10-24-2007, 02:37 PM
This a thread for all who realize that whichever team represents the NFC in the superbowl will be the worst team to ever play in a superbowl, be it the anyone, from the Rams to the Cowboys. Discuss Div 1-AA, I mean the NFL subdivision.

How about the mid-90's Bills?

yodabear
10-24-2007, 02:45 PM
Am I the loner on the Rams bandwagon?

MaddHatter
10-24-2007, 02:53 PM
So much trouble that we made the Superbowl.

But the Cowboys winning 6 games so far this year...much more impressive.

And for the record, this is about "worst teams to have made the SB" so yes... they HAD to make the SB to even be in this discussion. If you want to let your homerism cloud your judgement, that's fine but that's no reason to lash out.

no love
10-24-2007, 03:48 PM
They barely beat the bills and vikes, lost to new England and only beat us by ten in a game where our top defender got hurt, our top runner got hurt, strahan wasn't yet in game shape and spags hadn't yet figured out what to do with kiwi, not to mention that we didn't have our top 3 corners in that game, that's not a team that screams anything more than worst superbowl loser ever. Come playoff time I expect to see the NFC reach a new level of mediocrity.

There is a huge difference between worst superbowl team ever vs. worst superbowl loser ever. In your two posts you said both. Which one is it?

Because of the dominance of the current Patriots team it is not inconceivable that this years Superbowl might be the worst loss ever. But even then would be really really hard to top the 55-10 drubbing of the Broncos by the 49ers in 1990. But that Bronco team wasn't the worst that I have seen in the Superbowl.

Today's Cowboys on paper are more impressive than the 99 Falcons, the 01 Giants and the 06 Seahawks. But I don't think one can really compare whether those teams were better or worse.

MaddHatter
10-24-2007, 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by osi+ap=allshallperish
They barely beat the bills and vikes, lost to new England and only beat us by ten in a game where our top defender got hurt, our top runner got hurt, strahan wasn't yet in game shape and spags hadn't yet figured out what to do with kiwi, not to mention that we didn't have our top 3 corners in that game, that's not a team that screams anything more than worst superbowl loser ever. Come playoff time I expect to see the NFC reach a new level of mediocrity.

Giants were injured, so were the Cowboys - a win is a win and you have a shot at a rematch - I think the Giants are a top 5 team in the NFC.

Bills was an anomoly but they did what they had to do to pull off the win.

They were the first team to beat the Vikings by 10 pts and they shut it down in the 3rd quarter and ran it down their throats against a top run defense. Unlike the Pats who keep going, we pulled in the reigns. If you watched the game, you saw it was total domination after the first quarter.

The Pats were the Pats and we were missing several of our top defensive players as were they - hopefully it exposed our weaknesses and made us better. If we meet them again in Arizona it could be a 10pt game it could be a 20pt game (difference) but I doubt it's anything like the 45-55pt drubbing the Cowboys put on the Bills a decade ago.

HoopsDemon12
10-24-2007, 04:07 PM
having that said though, is there really any team in the AFC other than the Colts and Pats that can't lose on any given sunday to an NFC team?

I think its not that the AFC is so much better than the NFC, but moreso that the AFC has both Brady and Peyton, and because of that, those 2 teams are just a step ahead of anyone else in the league.

Take those 2 teams away, and the AFC isn't that much different from the NFC.

But of course, because those 2 teams are in the AFC, theyre the better division.

Ya for me, i have to say there is an overall better level of talent in the AFC, I like the Pats, Colts and Steelers.. but the steelers lost that one to the broncos... i have no idea how this year is gonna pan out.. the only two consistent teams have been the pats and colts really

CC.SD
10-24-2007, 04:52 PM
well, 2 of the top 5 afc teams we've already concluded can beat the NFC rather easily.

So let's take the remaining 3 and compare them to the NFC (by current record).

Pittsburgh
Tennesee
Jacksonville

Vs

Giants
Panthers
Redskins

(again, we don't include the 2 best NFC teams by record to make it fair)

I think the Giants have a legitimate chance if they sustain their current play to beat any of those 3 teams. I also feel the same way about the Redskins. I don't know about the Panthers though because of their qb situation. But I think that its not that far off when you compare the rest of the divisions to each other.


I would take San Diego over all six of those teams, and I don't think I'd be too much of a homer.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 05:23 PM
You just don't like the Giants, do you? =D

I just think we're just another flawed team in a league filled with flawed teams. We are suseptible to the inside run, can't cover the tight end, have some of the worst cover safeties in the league, Tynes and our o is too dependent on the deep ball.

GB12
10-24-2007, 05:43 PM
This might not fit here, but I can't stand how when they talk about who the best team in the NFC is on ESPN/FOX/CBS they ask "Who's the best Dallas or New York". It's as if they forget that Green Bay and Dallas have the same number of losses, or that the Packers beat New York. I'm not saying that we're the clear cut number one, but it pisses me off how we aren't even mentioned especially when lesser teams(NY) are.

bearsfan_51
10-24-2007, 07:39 PM
Today's Cowboys on paper are more impressive than the 99 Falcons, the 01 Giants and the 06 Seahawks. But I don't think one can really compare whether those teams were better or worse.
"On paper".

Gimme a break. This is ridiculous.

We're comparing teams that haven't even made the playoffs yet to teams that made the Superbowl. I understand the premise of the thread in general is flawed, but that's even worse logic.

bearsfan_51
10-24-2007, 07:43 PM
And for the record, this is about "worst teams to have made the SB" so yes... they HAD to make the SB to even be in this discussion. If you want to let your homerism cloud your judgement, that's fine but that's no reason to lash out.
What am I being homerish about? A team that made the Superbowl is better than a team that hasn't even made the playoffs yet.

I understand the premise of the thread is faulty, but to make claims that teams that have proved NOTHING are better than teams that won 15 games and made the Superbowl is absolutely absurd.

Boston
10-24-2007, 08:02 PM
Am I the loner on the Rams bandwagon?

So does that mean that nobodies on that bandwagon now?

scottyboy
10-24-2007, 08:28 PM
Am I the loner on the Rams bandwagon?

of course I'm on it. Hello, you've got Brian Leonard.

oh and everyone knows that if Jeremy Ito was the Cards QB they wouldnt be as bad as they are. The NFC is very under rated based on the true fact that my favorite team is from the NFC and deserve more respect because i said so.

MaddHatter
10-24-2007, 08:40 PM
What am I being homerish about? A team that made the Superbowl is better than a team that hasn't even made the playoffs yet.

I understand the premise of the thread is faulty, but to make claims that teams that have proved NOTHING are better than teams that won 15 games and made the Superbowl is absolutely absurd.

That's understandable and I agree that it's absurd, but I think it's common sense that the Bears were out of their league in the Super Bowl and made it there b/c of Hester and their Defense

JK17
10-24-2007, 08:47 PM
That's understandable and I agree that it's absurd, but I think it's common sense that the Bears were out of their league in the Super Bowl and made it there b/c of Hester and their Defense

Which means they are a bad team? Last I checked the defense and Hester were part of their team...which would mean they weren't that bad of a team, winning 13 regular season games, then making the Super Bowl with relative ease....

EDIT: I mean, also, what about the Ravens in 2000(?)? All they had was a defense, does that make them a bad team, just because they can win with just that?

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 08:52 PM
That's understandable and I agree that it's absurd, but I think it's common sense that the Bears were out of their league in the Super Bowl and made it there b/c of Hester and their Defense

No the colts where out of their league because they only made it b/c of their offense!

ks_perfection
10-24-2007, 09:06 PM
Which means they are a bad team? Last I checked the defense and Hester were part of their team...which would mean they weren't that bad of a team, winning 13 regular season games, then making the Super Bowl with relative ease....

EDIT: I mean, also, what about the Ravens in 2000(?)? All they had was a defense, does that make them a bad team, just because they can win with just that?

Relative Easy? They it past the divisional round in overtime, and only got there because Hassleback threw an interception when the defender was directly infront on the reciever.

JK17
10-24-2007, 09:19 PM
Relative Easy? They it past the divisional round in overtime, and only got there because Hassleback threw an interception when the defender was directly infront on the reciever.

And then absolutely stomped the Saints in the NFC Championship game, a much more meaningful game. And the bottom line is that just because they only have a great defense and Special Teams doesn't mean their team couldn't have been a great team. But yes, they did struggle in that game I guess it was an overstatement, although I meant it to apply to their entire season, and not just the playoffs. They were, at least in my opinion the unquestioned best team in the NFC, for all of last year, with only a couple mentions of the Saints.

LonghornsLegend
10-24-2007, 09:26 PM
They barely beat the bills and vikes, lost to new England and only beat us by ten in a game where our top defender got hurt, our top runner got hurt, strahan wasn't yet in game shape and spags hadn't yet figured out what to do with kiwi, not to mention that we didn't have our top 3 corners in that game, that's not a team that screams anything more than worst superbowl loser ever. Come playoff time I expect to see the NFC reach a new level of mediocrity.


Wow, you sure do have alot of reasons to discredit the Cowboys there buddy, I admit it sounds a little homerish when you spout off wins by saying things like "well they barely beat these teams, and when they beat us we didnt have 'insert long list of excuses'"

Personally I really dont care what you think about the cowboys, that doesnt make them any better or worse regardless of your opinion, but if the cowboys OR giants make the super bowl, I find a hard time believing they arent worse then the Chargers that got murked by the niners, or the Giants with kerry collins at qb


and with the long list of excuses you listed about why the Giants lose to the cowboys, I guess it doesnt count that we didnt have Newman, Ellis, Glenn, but your right, I guess those things only count towards the losing team *shrugs*

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-24-2007, 09:46 PM
Wow, you sure do have alot of reasons to discredit the Cowboys there buddy, I admit it sounds a little homerish when you spout off wins by saying things like "well they barely beat these teams, and when they beat us we didnt have 'insert long list of excuses'"

Personally I really dont care what you think about the cowboys, that doesnt make them any better or worse regardless of your opinion, but if the cowboys OR giants make the super bowl, I find a hard time believing they arent worse then the Chargers that got murked by the niners, or the Giants with kerry collins at qb


and with the long list of excuses you listed about why the Giants lose to the cowboys, I guess it doesnt count that we didnt have Newman, Ellis, Glenn, but your right, I guess those things only count towards the losing team *shrugs*

Don't waste your time calling me a homer b/c i said that i think your team isn't good. Now the cowboys are the front runners in the nfc and have a great shot to end up being in the superbowl, but in the end i think even the cowboys are worse than the 01 giants or anyother superbowl team.

BTW it's tough to be a homer when i'm criticizing tue cowboys for only beating my team by 10. The nfc just isn't good and while the cowboys could easily be the last team standing, they're still not a good team. At least at this point.

Mr. Stiller
10-24-2007, 11:16 PM
Henry played. Newman didn't.

It's not just the single loss. But you knocked the skins for barely beating the Cards. Yet the Steelers lost to them, and haven't beaten a good team yet.

We beat The Bills 26-3.. who at that time were relatively healthy..

they almost knocked off the Cowboys..

I mean if you're going to continue to point at our loss and say another team beat them therefore "Skins > Steelers because we lost to arizona, but they won"..

Arizona had the inside Track to all our players. Last I checked their HC/OL Coach didn't have the inside on the skins...

With that said Our OL is pathetic. Faneca doesn't deserve a pro-bowl vote. Our best OL Goes:

Marvel Smith
Sean Mahan
Willie Colon
Alan Faneca
Marvel Smith

Cowboys vs. Steelers

QB: Push (Romo is good but Ben is the same type of Player)
RB: Steelers (Parker > Jones, Davenport is playing out of his mind)
TE: Push (Witten is one of the best, but Miller is coming on, Fasano is Solid and Spaeth has 3 TD's in 4 games as a Rookie)
WR: Steelers by a slim Margin. TO is obviously the Best, but Holmes, Ward and Washington make up for it. We can literally go 5-deep (See Seattle game).
OL: Cowboys by a large Margin

DL: Steelers by a fairly large Margin
OLB: Cowboys (Ware+Spencer > Harrison+Haggans)
ILB: Steelers
CB: Push.. Newman is the best by far, but we have way better depth at Corner.
FS: Steelers.. Clark is playing possessed and I think he's better in coverage than Hamlin.
SS: Push. I think Polamalu is better but I'll leave that one up for other opinions.

Though I think The Steelers match up better against NE than Dallas.

I Think we could beat NYG, GB, and Washington.

I don't know what all the hate is on Ben for.

We'll see. I think the Steelers get exposed as the season goes on. They can't run like they used to and Ben has never been able to put a team on his back and pass the ball a significant amount without turning it over a bunch.

You obviously havent' seen him this year.. The fact that we're 4-2 is a testament to how well Ben is playing.

Ask anyone who's watched a Steelers game why we're winning. If they don't say "Ben Roethlisberger" They're lying.

Ben has arguably one of the worst Offensive Lines in the NFL. Sure he holds on to the ball for a while, because he has to look down field, dodge 2 Defensive Lineman and then move to get an opportunity to throw.

I mean, Ben had a great season as a Manager in 2005... But he's on pace to blast all those #'s away. He's also leading this team.

6 games into the season..

he's only 5 TD's away from his Season high (18, 13)
he's only 3.1% away from his season high Completion % (66.4, 63.3)

He's on pace for nearly 3500 yards passing, 34 TD's..

However, his OL isn't exactly going to help him out.

LonghornsLegend
10-24-2007, 11:32 PM
Cowboys vs. Steelers


RB: Steelers (Parker > Jones, Davenport is playing out of his mind)


Wow, way to grade our rb position by just one player, then mention how well Davenport is playing after the fact, as if we run JJ 25 carries a game and dont use some guy named Marion Barber...Thats pretty much like saying Steelers have a better running game then the Jags, Parker>Fred Taylor, and Davenport is playing great, and dont bring up MJD


if you want to grade our rb position, do it as a whole, its not parker vs jj, jones had 9 carries last week, Barber had the first rushing game over 70 yds vs the vikes with 96 and the first rushing td, if you were just grading that position off of strictly jones 90% of teams would be greater then us


And the TE position a push?? wow...Only teams that are a push when it comes to witten are the select few that have an elite te, Witten is playing out of his mind right now, and Fasano is capable of starting for alot of teams, Miller is up and coming but definately not playing at the same level of Witten this season

someone447
10-25-2007, 12:33 AM
Sure our QB play sucked, but you can find flaws on all of those teams.


I would be willing to bet that ONE of those teams will develop to the point of being as good, maybe even better, than the Bears were last year. At this point though they are all teams that have started off well but have shown severe flaws that could really hurt them down the stretch.

But none of them have proven that yet. And for someone to make the claim that all three are ALREADY better than a team that won 15 games last year is either homerish, dumb, or both. At this point last year the Bears were undefeated and absolutely destroying people.

I am not claiming any are definitely better, just that the 4 teams are all on about the same level.

Jughead10
10-25-2007, 07:35 AM
You obviously havent' seen him this year.. The fact that we're 4-2 is a testament to how well Ben is playing.

Ask anyone who's watched a Steelers game why we're winning. If they don't say "Ben Roethlisberger" They're lying.

Ben has arguably one of the worst Offensive Lines in the NFL. Sure he holds on to the ball for a while, because he has to look down field, dodge 2 Defensive Lineman and then move to get an opportunity to throw.

I mean, Ben had a great season as a Manager in 2005... But he's on pace to blast all those #'s away. He's also leading this team.

6 games into the season..

he's only 5 TD's away from his Season high (18, 13)
he's only 3.1% away from his season high Completion % (66.4, 63.3)

He's on pace for nearly 3500 yards passing, 34 TD's..

However, his OL isn't exactly going to help him out.

This doesn't change the fact that any time Ben Roethlisberger has to attempt what many would consider a normal or fairly normal amount of passes for a QB, he struggles. This year he is 1-2 when attempting 30 or more passes. 3-0 when attempting under 30 passes. Last season, 1-7 when attempting more than 30 passes. 6-1 when attempting under 30. That is pretty drastic if you ask me.

MaddHatter
10-25-2007, 07:38 AM
Which means they are a bad team? Last I checked the defense and Hester were part of their team...which would mean they weren't that bad of a team, winning 13 regular season games, then making the Super Bowl with relative ease....

EDIT: I mean, also, what about the Ravens in 2000(?)? All they had was a defense, does that make them a bad team, just because they can win with just that?

Whoever said that any of these teams were bad? I just said that they were obviously outmatched and probably less superior then some of the teams this year. Why?

Well for one, Green Bay/Dallas/NYG all 3 have solid defenses AND good offenses. Over the last 30+ years, that combination has always proven to be superior to a team with a great defense but no offense.

MaddHatter
10-25-2007, 07:41 AM
No the colts where out of their league because they only made it b/c of their offense!


Sarcasm noted, but just incase it wasn't, I guess you compeletly blanked out during the 2nd half of the season when their defense turned around and led them through the playoffs

Basileus777
10-25-2007, 07:57 AM
This doesn't change the fact that any time Ben Roethlisberger has to attempt what many would consider a normal or fairly normal amount of passes for a QB, he struggles. This year he is 1-2 when attempting 30 or more passes. 3-0 when attempting under 30 passes. Last season, 1-7 when attempting more than 30 passes. 6-1 when attempting under 30. That is pretty drastic if you ask me.

I don't think that it is quite so drastic. Most qbs are going to win when they don't have to throw the ball, most will have more spotty records when they are throwing the ball alot. The Steelers weren't that good last year, of course Ben is going to have a poor record when they have to throw the ball alot.

Jughead10
10-25-2007, 08:00 AM
I don't think that it is quite so drastic. Most qbs are going to win when they don't have to throw the ball, most will have more spotty records when they are throwing the ball alot. The Steelers weren't that good last year, of course Ben is going to have a poor record when they have to throw the ball alot.

I agree to an extent. But his record is very drastic. If you'd like you can find the similar stats for some of his contemparies if you want. While they might not have great winning records, I'd expect them to be a whole lot closer to .500 than Ben is.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-25-2007, 08:26 AM
Sarcasm noted, but just incase it wasn't, I guess you compeletly blanked out during the 2nd half of the season when their defense turned around and led them through the playoffs

And you must've completely forgotten that the oline actually wanted to block for Thomas Jones and when Benson came in he was fired up. That team could run the ball and keep their defense fresh, while also having a great kicker and a passing game that, while erratic, was still good for a couple long completions a game.

Moses
10-25-2007, 11:58 AM
Don't waste your time calling me a homer b/c i said that i think your team isn't good. Now the cowboys are the front runners in the nfc and have a great shot to end up being in the superbowl, but in the end i think even the cowboys are worse than the 01 giants or anyother superbowl team.

BTW it's tough to be a homer when i'm criticizing tue cowboys for only beating my team by 10. The nfc just isn't good and while the cowboys could easily be the last team standing, they're still not a good team. At least at this point.

Are you crazy? How are the Cowboys not a good team? They've lost one game all season.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-25-2007, 12:08 PM
Are you crazy? How are the Cowboys not a good team? They've lost one game all season.

Being good isn't relative, just because your better than everyone else you play against doesn't necessarily mean your good.

LonghornsLegend
10-25-2007, 12:41 PM
Being good isn't relative, just because your better than everyone else you play against doesn't necessarily mean your good.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night...Its pretty crazy to argue with you that the Cowboys arent a good team, so I wont even waste my time with it

Moses
10-25-2007, 12:43 PM
Being good isn't relative, just because your better than everyone else you play against doesn't necessarily mean your good.

That is absurd. The Cowboys could be the 3rd best team in the league right now.

McBain
10-25-2007, 12:47 PM
Whatever makes you sleep better at night...Its pretty crazy to argue with you that the Cowboys arent a good team, so I wont even waste my time with it


you squeaked past the bills (a bad team) you barely beat the vikes (not a good team) got handled by the pats (a great team) i don't know how you figure you're such an awesome team.

Modano
10-25-2007, 12:54 PM
you squeaked past the bills (a bad team) you barely beat the vikes (not a good team) got handled by the pats (a great team) i don't know how you figure you're such an awesome team.

The Cowboys didn't "barely beat the vikes". Maybe the score was close, but the game wasn't close at all. The Cowboys a few yards from the endzone when Colombo made first a fals start and then allowed Udeze to run past him and sacked Romo forcing a fumble. Than, the Cowboys were driving when Crayton fumbled the ball that was returned for a TD. After that the Cowboys putted 17 unanswered points, dominating the game, and they could have easily score another in the 4th quarter, but they decided not to run up the score. And even when they were down 14-7, they were still dominating the game, the Vikings made just one good drive that ended in the AD TD.

LonghornsLegend
10-25-2007, 12:58 PM
you squeaked past the bills (a bad team) you barely beat the vikes (not a good team) got handled by the pats (a great team) i don't know how you figure you're such an awesome team.

dont put words in my mouth, because "awesome" is a word i never used at all, not even once to describe the cowboys...I said they were a good team, point blank...Wins are wins, I guess the Bears werent good last year because they didnt crush every team they played even though they won 13 games..I never said Dallas was a powerhouse, or great, or awesome, but to say they are not a good team because they havent blew out EVERY team on the schedule is not a good argument...this is the NFL, other then the pats how many teams have blown out every game??

I guess the Steelers and Jags arent good teams either because they lost games, but maybe their better then Dallas still because they are in the AFC...Teams have lost games this year to teams they had no business losing to, but people keep pointing out those same 3 dallas games against them, like the chicago game doesnt count, or like losing to new england means your not a good team...say what you want, but saying Dallas is not a good team right now is strictly bias, they are nowhere near the colts or pats, but I said good team


Id like for some of the people who think Dallas is not a good team, to please list the teams in the NFL, outside of Indy and the Pats, that are strictly "good teams"...please do, AFC of NFC, i sure am interested to know, because judging from some of you guys its only 2 good teams in the nfl, and the other 30 are terrible

McBain
10-25-2007, 01:09 PM
dont put words in my mouth, because "awesome" is a word i never used at all, not even once to describe the cowboys...I said they were a good team, point blank...Wins are wins, I guess the Bears werent good last year because they didnt crush every team they played even though they won 13 games..I never said Dallas was a powerhouse, or great, or awesome, but to say they are not a good team because they havent blew out EVERY team on the schedule is not a good argument...this is the NFL, other then the pats how many teams have blown out every game??

I guess the Steelers and Jags arent good teams either because they lost games, but maybe their better then Dallas still because they are in the AFC...Teams have lost games this year to teams they had no business losing to, but people keep pointing out those same 3 dallas games against them, like the chicago game doesnt count, or like losing to new england means your not a good team...say what you want, but saying Dallas is not a good team right now is strictly bias, they are nowhere near the colts or pats, but I said good team


Id like for some of the people who think Dallas is not a good team, to please list the teams in the NFL, outside of Indy and the Pats, that are strictly "good teams"...please do, AFC of NFC, i sure am interested to know, because judging from some of you guys its only 2 good teams in the nfl, and the other 30 are terrible

dallas isn't a terrible team... they are the third best team in a very weak year........


I just don't think they're much better than any of the other teams in the nfc... i think eventually a team will emerge from the nfc... dont' think it will be dallas though.

LonghornsLegend
10-25-2007, 01:26 PM
dallas isn't a terrible team... they are the third best team in a very weak year........


I just don't think they're much better than any of the other teams in the nfc... i think eventually a team will emerge from the nfc... dont' think it will be dallas though.


when you say "emerge from the nfc", what does that mean, Giants are emerging right now, Dallas has been playing at a high level all year, what are you looking for in terms of emerge?? Im not going to argue with you about if Dallas will or will not be that team because if I can remember your a Washington fan so its no point in trying to get you to agree with me on that point, you probably wont ever give Dallas any just due credit, if they win 13 games it will be an excuse as to why they won so many games

McBain
10-25-2007, 02:28 PM
when you say "emerge from the nfc", what does that mean, Giants are emerging right now, Dallas has been playing at a high level all year, what are you looking for in terms of emerge?? Im not going to argue with you about if Dallas will or will not be that team because if I can remember your a Washington fan so its no point in trying to get you to agree with me on that point, you probably wont ever give Dallas any just due credit, if they win 13 games it will be an excuse as to why they won so many games

what i'm trying to say is the season is not over. You act like just because you've won six.. against not so great comp you're going to win everything, but i'm saying there plenty of room for a collapse. remember that year that giants collapsed after going 5-1. **** i'm pretty stoned... but anyway it still makes sense i think.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-25-2007, 02:37 PM
That is absurd. The Cowboys could be the 3rd best team in the league right now.

Again you're missing my point. I'm not picking on the cowboys but rather the NFL on a whole. Maybe saying they're not good was harsh but i certainly wouldn't call them very good, just because the cowboys are better than 28 teams in the league doesn't make them very good. *shrug* Maybe my standards are just too high.

someone447
10-25-2007, 02:41 PM
when you say "emerge from the nfc", what does that mean, Giants are emerging right now, Dallas has been playing at a high level all year, what are you looking for in terms of emerge?? Im not going to argue with you about if Dallas will or will not be that team because if I can remember your a Washington fan so its no point in trying to get you to agree with me on that point, you probably wont ever give Dallas any just due credit, if they win 13 games it will be an excuse as to why they won so many games

And you skip the Packers, who should be undefeated, except for two fumbles in the red zone against the bears.

ks_perfection
10-25-2007, 06:48 PM
The Ginats would be decent since they can get alot of pressure from their front four and their offense can score some points. The boys are decent since they can put up alot of points, there D will struggle but if they can get a couple turnovers something could happen.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-25-2007, 11:44 PM
The Ginats would be decent since they can get alot of pressure from their front four and their offense can score some points. The boys are decent since they can put up alot of points, there D will struggle but if they can get a couple turnovers something could happen.

it's a bad sign when two of the top 3 teams in a conference are described as decent.

Giantsfan1080
10-26-2007, 07:51 AM
And you skip the Packers, who should be undefeated, except for two fumbles in the red zone against the bears.

If you want to use that logic then you should have lost Week 1 to the Eagles who fumbled their last kick to hand you guys a game winning FG.

someone447
10-26-2007, 03:15 PM
If you want to use that logic then you should have lost Week 1 to the Eagles who fumbled their last kick to hand you guys a game winning FG.

It would have just went to overtime. The Eagles and Packers both played bad that game. Other than those two fumbles and the Favre interception, the Packers dominated the bears.