This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
And from GhostRider:
(I wasn't, by the way, but that's how GR chose to view it. Having a fluke season and not being worthy of a playing in a championship game are clearly two different things.)
The opposite of legitimate. A team that experiences kismet for a short period of time or receives the benefit of some unusual circumstances.
That looks like a pretty convincing argument to me...
Except it does a poor job of explaining the disparity in success before and after this one year considering just how little turnover in personnel we are talking about here. We're talking about one starter and two injuries.
I don't disagree with your premise, but knowing what we now know about three of those four teams, why would you say the Steelers and Patriots were flukier?
85' Patriots. They won three games to get to the Super Bowl, but they were lucky to make the playoffs and obviously stood no chance in the Super Bowl that year, which in my opinion was the most one-sided Super Bowl in NFL history. If the Bears didn't play their backups for most of the 2nd half, New England might not have gained over 100 total yards.To this day I would have loved to see a rematch between Chicago and Miami.As for Atlanta, the were a great team that whole year that deserved to go to the Super Bowl and once there, lost to the team who had been the best team all year.
The 1979 Rams were 9-7. They clinched their playoff berth in the last week of the season by beating the Saints in a do-or-die game, despite being outgained by 120 yards and turning the ball over 6 times. In the first round of the playoffs, they got a 50-yard pass from Vince Ferragamo to Billy Waddy with 2 minutes left in the game to beat Dallas by two points.Then they got to face the 1979 Buccaneers in the NFC Championship game. If you think the '98 Falcons are a fluke, what must you think of the '79 Bucs? I understand that the Falcons didn't play well before or after 1998. Maybe it was kismet that caused them to play at a Super Bowl level for a season. But at least they did. The Rams of '79 never did play at a Super Bowl level, at any point in the season or the post-season. And yet they got to the Super Bowl anyway. To me, that's more of a fluke.
Weren't they winning that game after three quarters?Also, consider the fact that this same Rams team was in the midst of a stretch where they won 10 or more games a season 7 out of 8 years. That doesn't seem like a fluke to me. They sound like a pretty underrated team.
If you wanted to know the Super Bowl team with the biggest disparity between its record that year and its record in the previous and following years, I could have just run the database query for you. I guess my definition of fluke includes more than just that, though
This would be a worthy challenger, but they were a pretty good team for a few years prior to that and remained a good team for a few years afterward. Nonetheless, I agree that "pretty good" teams aren't really worthy SB competitors (as they proved).
So did mine. Re-read the post.If you wanted to know the Super Bowl team with the biggest disparity between its record that year and its record in the previous and following years, I could have just run the database query for you. I guess my definition of fluke includes more than just that, though
Its pretty subjective and mostly personal opinion but:Steelers play the Bengals in the first round of the playoffs. The Bengals won the division for the first time since 1990. Carson Palmer finished the season with a QB Rating of 101.1, he led the NFL in completion %, and TDs. Palmer makes one pass attempt for 66 yards, then he and Chris Henry both leave the game due to injury on that play. Jon Kitna then took the reigns for the Bengals...In the 2nd round the Colts have no one to blame but themselves. Nick Harper has nothing but open field on either side of him but he decides to run up the middle and get tackled by Roethlisberger. Vanderjagt, who hadn't missed a FG at home all year, then missed a 46 yarder that would have put the game in OT. Then for the superbowl game, was probably the worst reffed football game from start to finish imo. Bogus offensive PI call on the Seahawks first drive, several bogus holding calls against the seahawks, the Roethlisberger TD which has forever changed my opinion on whether a ball is "across the goalline". Seahawks TE Jeramy Stevens also dropped numerous balls, i believe one of the Seahawks safeties got injured pretty early and the backup was in, Pruitt something, and he took a horrible angle on the long FWP TD.I realize i probably sound bitter about the Steelers winning it that year. And i probably still am.
I gave you kismet. I gave you unusual circumstances. Your answer was exactly the same as it has been throughout both threads: look at the records before and after. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen you take any other data into consideration other than that. Have you discussed the 1998 Falcons at all anywhere in either thread? Not the 1997 or 1999 Falcons, but the 1998 Falcons. Does their play during that season matter at all?So did mine. Re-read the post.If you wanted to know the Super Bowl team with the biggest disparity between its record that year and its record in the previous and following years, I could have just run the database query for you. I guess my definition of fluke includes more than just that, though
In that post I was addressing the 1979 Rams that you brought up. In addition to the records of years leading up to and after their SB appearance, I mentioned that they were actually winning that game after three quarters. The fact they were doing this against the juggernaut team-of-the decade largely indicates that they deserved to be there. The Falcons only lead came on an early FG, and they never saw daylight again.Feel free to compare their rosters. Chris Chandler and Jamal Anderson were the only offensive standouts for the Falcons. On defense, they boasted Cornelius Bennett, Jessie Tuggle, Ray Buchanan, and Eugene Robinson. Bennett and Robinson were definitely in their twilight. The Rams offense only had Jacki Slater, but the defense had Jim and Jack Youngblood, Fred Dryer, Hacksaw Reynolds, and Nolan Cromwell. All except for Dryer were more or less in the prime of their careers.
You definitely sound bitter, but the Palmer injury was the best thing that happened to that team. You forgot to mention Jake Plummer sitting there with his eyes wide open and rear end puckered up BIG time in the AFC championship. The Giants from last year beat 3 super powers on their run to the title (@Dal, @GB, NE). The Steelers that year beat one (Indy).
Were the Cowboys and Packers really super powers?
OK. Falcons roster: 14-2 record. Rams roster: 9-7 record.Look, I totally understand your point. I even agree with it. I just think you're taking it a tad bit too far. If you want to talk about whether the 1998 Falcons were a fluke, I think the performance of the 1998 Falcons during the 1998 season has to at least factor in a little bit.
Okay, I'll bite. Name the SB team that had a lousy record and posted terrible stats.
How so?: They lost their three key players. How do you think the Colts would do if they lost Peyton, Wayne, and Harrison? How would the Pats do without Brady, Welker, and Moss? How would the Eagles do without Mcnabb, Westbrook, and Jackson? How would the Cardinals do without Warner, Fitzgerald, and Boldin?Pretty much any team that doesn't rely entirely on their defense like Pit/Baltimore/Tenn do are going to be much worse if you take away their 3 best offensive weapons and replace them with a bunch of nobodies.Despyzer said:
The 1979 Rams! Compared to most Super Bowl teams, including the 1998 Falcons, they had a lousy record and posted terrible stats.What a bizarre conversation this is.Despyzer said:
Let's imagine that those three players being healthy can result in doubling the number of wins they get over the next two years (which seems like a real longshot), they only win an average of 9 games over the next two years, which is pretty mediocre. It also doesn't explain the previous two years when they did have a healthy Jamal Williams and Chris Chandler. I'm not really sure how you can compare Chandler and Martin to Manning and Harrison or Brady and Moss though. It seems like you are really grasping to make an argument.
I agree. I'd expect you to do more than just look at a team's regular season won/loss record and automatically tab them as a fluke. It just seems like kind of a lazy approach. Strength of schedule, injuries, and odd circumstances often leave better teams with worse regular season records than weaker ones.
Chris Chandler 190-327 3154yds 25td 12intReplaced by Tony Graziani and Danny Kanelll
What league are you watching? This is the NFL. There are like 3 franchises that can consistently put up 12+ win seasons. Does that mean that every good season that any other franchise has is a fluke, since next year they're almost always back down to 9 or fewer wins?
Those Rams teams were great. I don't remember the exact stat, but it's something like "only two teams have ever gone nine straight years ranking in the top ten in yards allowed" and the answer was the '70s Rams and the recent Bucs. That was a great defense that made the Rams terrific despite four head coaches and five different QBs. Not much stayed the same except for Youngblood, Reynolds, Elmendorf and Fred Dryer. But they made NFCCG after NFCCG always losing to either Tarkenton or Staubach. Not a lot of shame in that.Despyzer said:
just reading and remember the falcons/49ers playoff games conjures up memories of Garrison Heart sick ankle snap. if hearst doesn't have the exorcist type 360 turn of his ankle the falcons likely don't make that Super Bowl. not to downplay the Falcons season in 98', they were a legit team and deserved to be in the Super Bowl. they had a very Pittsburgh/Baltimomre type Season where they had a very very efficient running game and Great Manager at QB with a strong Defense. if i recall they had a humorous distraction when Eugene Robinson got busted with a 'professional' in the week leading up to the game.
I don't think you're paying attention here. The Falcons would have had to have DOUBLED their wins to average a 9 win season over the next two years. The absence of one player and two injuries that didn't even take those players off the field for the whole season aren't enough to explain that.
I hate calling any team that made the Super Bowl a fluke, but in the case of the '01 Patriots, they were extremely lucky. They won in the divisional round against the Raiders because of the infamous Tuck Rule, and they beat the Steelers in the AFC title game by getting a punt return (when the punt had to be re-kicked because of a procedure penalty) and a blocked FG return for a TD (that shouldn't have counted because the ball was lateraled forward on the return). Not fluky, but extremely lucky. And that is not even taking into account how fortunate they were in the Super Bowl, where they were once again outplayed, but managed to win.Despyzer said:
Despyzer's original post said:
The problem is that those are not mutually exclusive. Whether a team has an anomalously good season for their franchise is dependent on what the franchise does in surrounding years. Whether a team is as legitimately good as a Super Bowl contender as another has only to do with how they played the season they were in the Super Bowl. The results from the 97 or 99 seasons don't affect the quality of the 98 team and it's deserving to be in the Super Bowl in 98.Despyzer seems to be saying that the 98 Falcons going 14-2 and making a Super Bowl is a fluke in the context of what the Falcons did as a season. One could probably make a fair argument that the 98 season was a fluke for the team, especially if nothing else but records are looked at. But that really doesn't make any statement about whether the 98 team was a deserving SB team in 98.Doug seems to be saying that is not a fluke for a team to make a Super Bowl when they play at a level that the 98 Falcons played at, and that yes they were as good as most Super Bowl contenders. I think he pretty clearly made the case for them.I don't see that either position being true negates that the other's position may be true. (ETA: In other words, it could have been a fluke that the 98 Falcons went from being a poor team to being a legitimate SB contending team for a season.) I think Despyzer though needs to realize a team's worthiness in the SB is based primarily on the season they made it. That's the only season whose record got them into the playoffs or not, and that is the only season whose game time play affected their playoff results.Since the original context of this seems to me to be more about what Doug is arguing, I think the answer to the poll is that the 98 Falcons were a legitimate SB contender.
But you seem to forget that the Rams played a very competitive Super Bowl against the Steelers. They were even leading at the end of the 3rd quarter. The Falcons were a very good team that year. But the Vikings pulled one of the biggest chokes ever in that NFC Championship game (and I'm not a fan/enemy of either team).Bad play calling, Viking players running out of bounds when they could have run out the clock, etc. doomed the Vikings.
Who's not paying attention? I think those 3 guys are easily worth 4-5 wins each year, if not more (and who knows how many more), which would put them around 9 or 10, and 3 straight 9/10 win seasons in the NFL is pretty darn good..I think I've made a pretty good case for those guys being worth those wins, but in the end we'll never really know how much better they would have been with all those guys rostered and healthy going forward, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. They had 3 guys that had stud seasons in 1998 replaced by complete nobodies that barely lasted in the NFL and never had a single good season between them in their entire careers.
Chandler and Martin can absolutely be compared to Manning/Harrison and Brady/Moss because they played at that same level for the duration of the 1998 season. It is a sound comparison.
You're twisting words. It's clear to me that you had no intention of actually debating this issue when you started the thread, but rather were just looking to make a point.
I just said I found it interesting. It's not like I'm comparing Chris Chandler and Tony Martin to Tom Brady and Randy Moss or anything. You may also want to check out the second post.
