Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I see you working..
Man, you really dont wanna change your handle....this team is way better than the team that lost by 10
I disagree. Emotion plays a big role in sports, particularly physical ones. And I think the Ravens players give a huge crap about Lewis' retirement.
If players don't give everything to the Super Bowl already, they're screwed. I don't know how much more they could give.
For #2, it was actually 31-3 and NE outscored SF 31-10 the rest of the game. SF got a lot of nice plays on D and special teams to go up by 28. I watched the game and out of SF's 6 fumbles, they only lost one and one of them ended up getting picked up by Gore to run in for a TD. A few lucky bounces go NE's way after they gave the game away and I think NE would have won. I wouldn't point to SF's lead as them waxing NE. NE put up 520 offensive yards on SF.If you watched the AFC Championship game, that was a game were Baltimore dominated every facet and held NE's offense in check. If Baltimore plays D like that, I would be shocked if they don't win the game. I don't think SF's D is as great and it has been exposed in the playoffs like they were last year. It has been SF's offense that has won their playoff games this year and last year.
The Atlanta Falcons, a team that many saw as "pretenders", were waxing the Niners 17-0. See how it works?
I agree, but emotion can be a two-edged sword. The Ravens have been riding that emotion for 3 weeks now, and it will be almost a month by the time the play the game. The emotion could give them an "edge," but it could just as likely cause them to be "spent" when they play the game.
You missed the point, which was that the Patriots team that the Ravens beat just wasn't that good (not to mention they were minus a starting TE, corner, and RB). Both the Pats and Broncos feasted off weak divisions. And yes, the Falcons WERE WAXING the niners, there's no argument against that. But what does that have to do with the perceived "impressiveness" of beating the Patriots?The NFC West was 3-1 against the Patriots. Aside from owning the Texans, what else have the Patriots done? What have the Broncos done? Point is, the AFC is just kinda weak.
How exactly do you "dominate every facet" of the game and go into half time trailing?
If we peel back the layers on the 49ers...1) they have given up 90 points in their last 2 1/2 quarters of football away from home. 2) the 49ers were 0-1-1 against the Rams. 3) the Falcons were considered by many to be a fraud, and the Packers had too many holes, so are the 49ers really THAT good, or were their two opponents in the playoffs just not impressive? See, it works both ways.'chinawildman said:
Did you miss the 21-0 score in the second half? How exactly do you wax someone winning a game by 7 when you had a 28 point lead and they made a bunch of mistakes and you lucked out to only have 1 in 6 fumbles become turnovers? Do you watch complete games or just one half? I watched the whole 49er/NE game and the NE/Baltimore game and IMHO Baltimore looked better. Baltimore won by 15 and held the NE offense to 13 points or 21 less than SF. If they kept playing both games another quarter, Baltimore wins easy, SF, not sure. That is why I consider it waxing.LOL at the RB/TE being out argument agains Baltimore. Ridley had 18 carries against Baltimore and only 9 against SF and Gronk didn't play against SF, so how is that even an argument in your mind that SF somehow played a better NE team. NE still put up 520 yards against SF.'chinawildman said:How exactly do you "dominate every facet" of the game and go into half time trailing?'stbugs said:
If we peel back the layers on the 49ers...1) they have given up 90 points in their last 2 1/2 quarters of football away from home. 2) the 49ers were 0-1-1 against the Rams. 3) the Falcons were considered by many to be a fraud, and the Packers had too many holes, so are the 49ers really THAT good, or were their two opponents in the playoffs just not impressive? See, it works both ways.'chinawildman said:
If we peel back the layers on the 49ers...1) they have given up 90 points in their last 2 1/2 quarters of football away from home.'chinawildman said:
2) the 49ers were 0-1-1 against the Rams.
3) the Falcons were considered by many to be a fraud, and the Packers had too many holes, so are the 49ers really THAT good, or were their two opponents in the playoffs just not impressive?
See, it works both ways.
Because the Patriots closed the gap in that game, but you seemed to think that only the beggining counted.'chinawildman said:
31 in the 2nd half at NE42 at SeattleIf we peel back the layers on the 49ers...1) they have given up 90 points in their last 2 1/2 quarters of football away from home.'chinawildman said:
2) the 49ers were 0-1-1 against the Rams.
3) the Falcons were considered by many to be a fraud, and the Packers had too many holes, so are the 49ers really THAT good, or were their two opponents in the playoffs just not impressive?
See, it works both ways.
You accidentally type 2.5 quarters, not 2.5 games.31 in the 2nd half at NE42 at SeattleIf we peel back the layers on the 49ers...1) they have given up 90 points in their last 2 1/2 quarters of football away from home.'chinawildman said:
2) the 49ers were 0-1-1 against the Rams.
3) the Falcons were considered by many to be a fraud, and the Packers had too many holes, so are the 49ers really THAT good, or were their two opponents in the playoffs just not impressive?
See, it works both ways.
24 at Atlanta
I stand corrected. It's 97, not 90.
Sure, it's not like I said the niners don't have problems of their own, but that's not the point here.My original post was addressing the relative strength (or lack thereof) of the AFC. People are putting alot of weight behind the wins against brady and manning, but I think those teams are more bark than bite and still riding on the names of their QBs. Think about it, these #1 and #2 seeds in the AFC went a combined 4-4 against their NFC opponents. #1 and 2 seeds in the NFC went 8-0 against the AFC.In fact the entire NFC only had 3 teams that didn't finish 7-9 or better. That's 3 out of 16 teams. The Rams at 7-8-1 have a better record than all but 7 AFC teams while playing in a tougher division and conference. You may say the Falcons are fraud, but the numbers say the real frauds are in the AFC.If we peel back the layers on the 49ers...1) they have given up 90 points in their last 2 1/2 quarters of football away from home. 2) the 49ers were 0-1-1 against the Rams. 3) the Falcons were considered by many to be a fraud, and the Packers had too many holes, so are the 49ers really THAT good, or were their two opponents in the playoffs just not impressive? See, it works both ways.'chinawildman said:
I wasn't trying to say which win over the Pats was more impressive. I was trying to say that a win over the Patriots in Foxboro doesn't mean what it used to. I mean c'mon the cardinals beat the Patriots in foxboro this yr... THE CARDINALS.Did you miss the 21-0 score in the second half? How exactly do you wax someone winning a game by 7 when you had a 28 point lead and they made a bunch of mistakes and you lucked out to only have 1 in 6 fumbles become turnovers? Do you watch complete games or just one half? I watched the whole 49er/NE game and the NE/Baltimore game and IMHO Baltimore looked better. Baltimore won by 15 and held the NE offense to 13 points or 21 less than SF. If they kept playing both games another quarter, Baltimore wins easy, SF, not sure. That is why I consider it waxing.LOL at the RB/TE being out argument agains Baltimore. Ridley had 18 carries against Baltimore and only 9 against SF and Gronk didn't play against SF, so how is that even an argument in your mind that SF somehow played a better NE team. NE still put up 520 yards against SF.'chinawildman said:How exactly do you "dominate every facet" of the game and go into half time trailing?'stbugs said:
Not trying to say SF isn't good, but if you actually watch a complete game it helps you see more. I stand by my comment, if Baltimore's D plays like they did last week, I think they win.
Culliver really hurt your feelings, didn't he?FWIW, I agree with your post.
You accidentally type 2.5 quarters, not 2.5 games.31 in the 2nd half at NE42 at SeattleIf we peel back the layers on the 49ers...1) they have given up 90 points in their last 2 1/2 quarters of football away from home.'chinawildman said:
2) the 49ers were 0-1-1 against the Rams.
3) the Falcons were considered by many to be a fraud, and the Packers had too many holes, so are the 49ers really THAT good, or were their two opponents in the playoffs just not impressive?
See, it works both ways.
24 at Atlanta
I stand corrected. It's 97, not 90.
Damn it. My point still stands, however, typos notwithstanding. 
I had to go double check everything you posted here because I didn't think there was any way it could be true.It's true.
This
People play for themselves, nobody else. It doesn't matter at all. If they aren't amped up to play in the super bowl, they aren't going to care about Lewis retiring. It's not a preseason game where they aren't interested. I mean it's the dumbest thing I've heard.
Don't you think that is what they will have?IMO with smith healthy this would be even. Right now the niners front 7 is outmatched by the ravens line with leach. They will get beat over the top. Unless flacco starts flacco'ing. Mckinnie matches great with a.smith. the niners safeties are average cover guys. The 49ers have not played a rushing offense this good too. I think the ravens offense has the advantage. But, then again, these two teams are symmetric, so to speak. Baltimore's defense has the same role that the 49ers offense has: Making big plays. Ravens o and 49ers d are dominant. I think that's the only difference. Two sides of the same coin?Yes, I did say Baltimore has a dominant offense.This game will be won by whichever of the two dominant units can do their job better I.e. if the 49ers defense can prevent the ravens offense from scoring points. The ravens defense is exponentially better than every defense this 49ers offense has played so far outside of Seattle. They will make plays against the offense and we've seen that the 49ers are capable of slow starts and turnovers with kaepernick. So let's not crown em yet because, unlike the falcons, the ravens can run the ball and won't give time up 17.
Really? You don't know sports or the NFL very well at all. Good day to you, sir.
Goal of oddsmakers in Vegas is to get as close to a 50/50 split on money in between the two teams (since they get that sweet vigorish). If there really was 70% action on the Ravens, you'd see the line move. And even if that was true, it only means that there is group of people that think the Ravens will win outright or Niners will win by more than the spread.. and not 70% believe Ravens to win outright.
Much like he did against the Pats? Or the Broncos? Or the Colts?I am not a big Flacco fan but interceptions have not been what he has thrown in the playoffs. He may buck that trend here in the Super Bowl but I am not sure what would make you confident in that.
