What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Back the Truck Up! (1 Viewer)

Ministry of Pain

Ministry of Pain

Footballguy
Time to go over what I think about the Super Bowl this weekend.

Pittsburgh is part of a dynasty of about 4-5 teams in the AFC that have dominated the NFL landscape for the last 10+ years. These teams are always pretty good, always in the playoffs, and almost always in the Super Bowl and tend to win those games although many of them were quite close. Those teams include New England, Indianapolis, Baltimore, and the San Diego Chargers. The Bolts never went to a Super Bowl but they are 76-36 since 2004. Baltimore has 104 wins since 2000, 1 Super Bowl ring, and they play in the same division as Pittsburgh. The Colts are 138-54 over the past 12 seasons with 2 Super Bowl trips and 1 ring. And finally the Patriots are 121-39 since 2001 with 4 trips to the Super Bowl and 3 rings to show for it as well as going perfect in the 2007 regular season. Add all that up and you have a very tough division and conference that Pittsburgh must navigate thru on a yearly basis. And they themselves have complied a 106-59 record over the last 10 years with 2 Super Bowl rings and this year making their 3rd trip inside of 6 years to the big game. Why do I emphasize this you ask?

Because when you go thru the history of the NFL and you look at teams in the 70s like Miami, Pitt, and Oakland which all won Super Bowls and you look at the competition they had to go thru with each other, it made them all stronger. Go to the 80s thru the mid-90s and it becomes the SF 49ers, Washington Redskins, NY Giants, and the Dallas Cowboys…they pushed each other to greatness. They had to be dominant to beat out the other teams in their conferences just to get to the Super Bowl.

I don’t really care to get in depth about the Steelers defense and the spread offense and the match up or headache it creates. I have seen the Green Bay Packers before in the Super Bowl and it includes teams like the Minnesota Vikings in the 70s, The Dan Marino Miami Dolphins of the 80s, the Buffalo Bills in the 90s, the point is I have seen this system or heralded type team before. Fans, media, and yes even this board has Aaron Rodgers on the brain and thinks he can win the game almost by himself; he’s the difference for this betting line right now. People are pointing to a game in the regular season last year or the year before and I just don’t think it makes a bit of difference this coming weekend.

Another key stat to me is that Pittsburgh has 38 players on their roster that have played in a Super Bowl before, and Green Bay has 2. There are clear examples of teams that didn’t have a lot of playoff or Super Bowl experience that were able to win a Super Bowl, I get that. But it makes a difference for a team like Pittsburgh.

Along the way this past decade we have seen a couple hiccups like the Giants in 2007 and New Orleans last year beating a veteran team like Indy but I think everyone agrees that coaching made a big difference and why Indy didn’t win it again last season when they stopped playing after starting 14-0 or whatever…you don’t put the brakes on something like that. I believe if Green Bay were to win this game it would be an upset despite the point spread.

Please let me say to the Green Bay Nation and some of the great posters we have on this board…don’t feel like you need to plaster a lot of stats on the season or convince me how good Rodgers is, or defend your Packers, I’ve been watching the playoffs and I understand. The reality is that this team was 8-6 and on the verge of being eliminated from the playoffs and then as Rodgers has said thru the media have ripped off 5 in a row when they were on the cusp of elimination. They got hot at the right time but this is far from a dominating team. I think they will be good for years to come, have a strong nucleus but the reality is they are not operating at 100%. They have no TE to hurt the Steelers with, they are not rolling the same quality of RB as Mendenhall out there; they simply are not. Anyone know btw who Mendenhall’s OC coached about 2 decades ago? I saw Mendenhall really attack the defenses in the playoffs and his OC was the RB coach for the KC Chiefs in the Christian Okoye era and I swear you could see a little Nigerian nightmare out there the past couple weeks. James Starks is a nice story but Mendenhall is a huge advantage in the running game.

I expect a war whether Green Bay wants it or not. I expect Pittsburgh to shut the running game off almost completely for Green Bay. If the Packers muster 60 yards rushing I would be surprised. Once the game turns into Rodgers dropping back all the time the Steelers will smell blood in the water and bring the house. Rodgers will not have time to progress thru his reads and I think the game will become very one sided once that happens. Pittsburgh has won 2 Super Bowls by pretty close margins. I can understand why folks feel this game will be close but I expect Pittsburgh to be ahead by double digits come the 2nd half going into the 4th Q.

The game will open with both teams trying to figure the other one out and sort of like jabs in a heavyweight fight. I expect Green Bay to get a little lucky and create a big play fairly early in the game. I’ll say 7-3 Green Bay after the 1st Q. The 2nd Q Pittsburgh will get the upper hand and Green Bay will manage a FG so we have a 13-10 score at the half. The 3rd Q I expect Pittsburgh to dominate and I see something like 27-13 entering the 4th Q. In the 4th Green Bay will score a TD and make it a 1 score game but Pittsburgh will find enough to ice the game and I am calling for a final score of roughly 30-20 in favor of Pittsburgh and I see their defense with at least 1 score and possibly setting up a short field.

So can Green Bay win the game? I don’t think the chances are very high but they absolutely must play mistake free football and they also have to score I believe twice on some busted coverage. If they get spotted something like 14 and then don’t turn the ball over I would say they have a chance but Green Bay having a chance vs a dynasty team like Pittsburgh that I can get +2.5 even today…sorry but I am all over Pittsburgh in this contest so I take the Steelers and the +2.5.

Again, to my Green Bay friends, just enjoy the game and should you all win you can come in and rub my nose in it, I’ll be happy to eat crow come Sunday Night/Monday Morning. But for now I have a call in to Brinks and we are going to Back the Truck Up!!!

Final Score: Pittsburgh 30...Green Bay 20

Cheers :goodposting:

 
This is not a direct shot at MOP, but "having been there before" is one of the least pertinent reasons to side with a team that I can think of. Going back the past 10-12 years . . .

The Colts had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Saints that had problems even winning a playoff game up until then.

The Patriots had been there and won several times before . . . and lost to the Giants who collectively really hadn't been there before.

The Buccaneers had been the doormats of the NFL for many of their seasons . . . and they beat a Raiders team that had been solid for several years filled with vets (Rice, Brown, Gannon, Romanoski, Woodson, Woodson, Garner, etc.).

The Ravens hadn't even had a winning season since being reconsistuted in BAL, let alone won a playoff game . . . yet they still won.

The Rams had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Pats who hadn't really been there before in terms of who was still on the roster.

Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.

People can say what they want about who they think will win, but "having won before" is not the greatest of arguments in my book. Every year and every team is different . . .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin said:
This is not a direct shot at MOP, but "having been there before" is one of the least pertinent reasons to side with a team that I can think of. Going back the past 10-12 years . . .The Colts had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Saints that had problems even winning a playoff game up until then.The Patriots had been there and won several times before . . . and lost to the Giants who collectively really hadn't been there before.The Buccaneers had been the doormats of the NFL for many of their seasons . . . and they beat a Raiders team that had been solid for several years filled with vets (Rice, Brown, Gannon, Romanoski, Woodson, Woodson, Garner, etc.).The Ravens hadn't even had a winning season since being reconsistuted in BAL, let alone won a playoff game . . . yet they still won.The Rams had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Pats who hadn't really been there before in terms of who was still on the roster.Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.People can say what they want about who they think will win, but "having won before" is not the greatest of argument's in my book. Every year and every team is different . . .
Click to expand...
Here comes "wet blanket" Yudkin...Nice post MOP...I agree 100%. I had Steelers 27 Pack 17.Go Steelers!
 
Stillers Jr. said:
David Yudkin said:
This is not a direct shot at MOP, but "having been there before" is one of the least pertinent reasons to side with a team that I can think of. Going back the past 10-12 years . . .The Colts had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Saints that had problems even winning a playoff game up until then.The Patriots had been there and won several times before . . . and lost to the Giants who collectively really hadn't been there before.The Buccaneers had been the doormats of the NFL for many of their seasons . . . and they beat a Raiders team that had been solid for several years filled with vets (Rice, Brown, Gannon, Romanoski, Woodson, Woodson, Garner, etc.).The Ravens hadn't even had a winning season since being reconsistuted in BAL, let alone won a playoff game . . . yet they still won.The Rams had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Pats who hadn't really been there before in terms of who was still on the roster.Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.People can say what they want about who they think will win, but "having won before" is not the greatest of argument's in my book. Every year and every team is different . . .
Click to expand...
Here comes "wet blanket" Yudkin...
Click to expand...
:mellow: Everything he said was true. The experience factor is definitely both overrated and overstated. The better team will win on Sunday, not the team with more experience.
 
Ministry of Pain said:
I expect a war whether Green Bay wants it or not. I expect Pittsburgh to shut the running game off almost completely for Green Bay. If the Packers muster 60 yards rushing I would be surprised. Once the game turns into Rodgers dropping back all the time the Steelers will smell blood in the water and bring the house. Rodgers will not have time to progress thru his reads and I think the game will become very one sided once that happens. Pittsburgh has won 2 Super Bowls by pretty close margins. I can understand why folks feel this game will be close but I expect Pittsburgh to be ahead by double digits come the 2nd half going into the 4th Q.
Click to expand...
I think this is much too simplistic. I'm doing the "posting lots of stats" thing, but it's relevant to your argument.In 2009 Rodgers was the highest-rated passer in the NFL against the blitz according to ESPN Stats & Information:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id...gainst-pressure

In 2010 he was similarly excellent, but the stats are broken down as game 1 vs. the rest of the season so it's hard to get the exact numbers.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id...he-blitz-basics

But we do know that over the past two years he has had a QB rating of over 110 and has thrown 27 TDs against 7 Ints when blitzed.

Further, lets suppose for arguments sake that the Packers completely and utterly abandon the run game. Like, they literally stop running the ball after their 2nd drive or something. It's not like every play is third and long. The offense is full of short passing plays like slants and RB& WR screens that are basically glorified running plays, against which the blitz is useless. The Packers aren't just going to start running all go every play.

Finally, and this has been pointed out before, the Packers do not need to get lots of yards out of the running game. 3rd and 5 is very manageable for this offense, and according to McCarthy the focus is more on making sure they get the correct volume of running plays so they can continue to use play-action, than on how many YPC they are getting out of the run game.

To summarize, I think:

1. The Packers will keep running the ball even if it's not doing much.

2. Rodgers is ace against the blitz, so it's not as simple as just sending the house.

What will actually happen on Sunday, who knows. We'll see.

 
Until the game is played, these opinions are pure folly...obviously...

But if given a choice between 2 evenly matched teams, I'd take the one with MORE Super Bowl experience over the one with almost NO Super Bowl experience every time.

You can pull out trends all you want, the fact is the SB is a big deal and the pressure gets to people. There's no denying it. That's why I think experience with playing in that condition will help.

 
apalmer said:
David Yudkin said:
Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying most of the time the more experienced team wins?
Click to expand...
If you want to "go there," on several occasions BOTH teams haven't been there or won before, but I left those out. So feel free to add in the Colts vs the Bears, the Steelers vs the Seahawks, the Rams vs the Titans, and the Packers vs. the Patriots. You can also add the Broncos beating the Packers to the "been there" and lost category.Since 1996 (15 years counting this SB), the "new" teams winning were GB, DEN, STL, BAL, NE, TB, PIT, IND, NYG, and NO (10 wins) compared to "been there" teams winning of DEN, NE, NE, PIT (4 wins).

 
David Yudkin said:
This is not a direct shot at MOP, but "having been there before" is one of the least pertinent reasons to side with a team that I can think of. Going back the past 10-12 years . . .The Colts had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Saints that had problems even winning a playoff game up until then.The Patriots had been there and won several times before . . . and lost to the Giants who collectively really hadn't been there before.The Buccaneers had been the doormats of the NFL for many of their seasons . . . and they beat a Raiders team that had been solid for several years filled with vets (Rice, Brown, Gannon, Romanoski, Woodson, Woodson, Garner, etc.).The Ravens hadn't even had a winning season since being reconsistuted in BAL, let alone won a playoff game . . . yet they still won.The Rams had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Pats who hadn't really been there before in terms of who was still on the roster.Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.People can say what they want about who they think will win, but "having won before" is not the greatest of arguments in my book. Every year and every team is different . . .
Click to expand...
Good stuff David, no offense taken but let's also look a little deeper. Baltimore is part of the 4-5 teams I mentioned up top, NewEng too, and the Bucs were one of the best in the NFC over a 4-5 year period. I think the NYG in '07 and Saints last year are better examples. The lines are in place, the Steelers are from a very rich tradition in the AFC over the last 10+ years. The upset has happened a few times but getting a team like Pitt with points is too much to pass up.
 
Ministry of Pain said:
David Yudkin said:
This is not a direct shot at MOP, but "having been there before" is one of the least pertinent reasons to side with a team that I can think of. Going back the past 10-12 years . . .The Colts had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Saints that had problems even winning a playoff game up until then.The Patriots had been there and won several times before . . . and lost to the Giants who collectively really hadn't been there before.The Buccaneers had been the doormats of the NFL for many of their seasons . . . and they beat a Raiders team that had been solid for several years filled with vets (Rice, Brown, Gannon, Romanoski, Woodson, Woodson, Garner, etc.).The Ravens hadn't even had a winning season since being reconsistuted in BAL, let alone won a playoff game . . . yet they still won.The Rams had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Pats who hadn't really been there before in terms of who was still on the roster.Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.People can say what they want about who they think will win, but "having won before" is not the greatest of arguments in my book. Every year and every team is different . . .
Click to expand...
Good stuff David, no offense taken but let's also look a little deeper. Baltimore is part of the 4-5 teams I mentioned up top, NewEng too, and the Bucs were one of the best in the NFC over a 4-5 year period. I think the NYG in '07 and Saints last year are better examples. The lines are in place, the Steelers are from a very rich tradition in the AFC over the last 10+ years. The upset has happened a few times but getting a team like Pitt with points is too much to pass up.
Click to expand...
MOP -If yur main point was to look only at a team having an advantage because they already won the SB, then you have to look at the teams WHEN THEY ACTUALLY WON the Super Bowl.The Ravens had done absolutely nothing prior to the year they won the SB. Sure, they have been good many years AFTER they won, but they haven't won another SB since. I don't see how you can put them in the "been there and have an advantage" camp, as they haven't won anything since they won.When NE played the Rams the first time, they were a hodge podge of relative no names. A few guys were around from when they lost to the Packers 5-6 years before (emphasis on lost), so they have to count in the "no experience winning a SB" camp. Yes, they won twice afterwards (score two in the "been there and won again" category) but they also lost to the Giants (so score one in the "never won before" category for NYG). IMO, that makes the Pats a net 2-2 (2 points in each category).The Bucs were one of the best teams for 4-5 years, but they had 1 playoff win in the previous 20 seasons prior to the 2002 season.If your intent was to say that teams with playoff experience that have had several decent seasons and THEN winning the SB, that is not how things came across (and would probably not hold true either, but I'd have to check). Were you really trying to say that teams that were decent for a few years have the advantage in winning a SB?Or do you really think that the results of the 70s and early 80s Steelers somehow has a bearing on the 2011 Super Bowl?
 
David Yudkin said:
Ministry of Pain said:
David Yudkin said:
This is not a direct shot at MOP, but "having been there before" is one of the least pertinent reasons to side with a team that I can think of. Going back the past 10-12 years . . .The Colts had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Saints that had problems even winning a playoff game up until then.The Patriots had been there and won several times before . . . and lost to the Giants who collectively really hadn't been there before.The Buccaneers had been the doormats of the NFL for many of their seasons . . . and they beat a Raiders team that had been solid for several years filled with vets (Rice, Brown, Gannon, Romanoski, Woodson, Woodson, Garner, etc.).The Ravens hadn't even had a winning season since being reconsistuted in BAL, let alone won a playoff game . . . yet they still won.The Rams had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Pats who hadn't really been there before in terms of who was still on the roster.Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.People can say what they want about who they think will win, but "having won before" is not the greatest of arguments in my book. Every year and every team is different . . .
Click to expand...
Good stuff David, no offense taken but let's also look a little deeper. Baltimore is part of the 4-5 teams I mentioned up top, NewEng too, and the Bucs were one of the best in the NFC over a 4-5 year period. I think the NYG in '07 and Saints last year are better examples. The lines are in place, the Steelers are from a very rich tradition in the AFC over the last 10+ years. The upset has happened a few times but getting a team like Pitt with points is too much to pass up.
Click to expand...
MOP -If yur main point was to look only at a team having an advantage because they already won the SB, then you have to look at the teams WHEN THEY ACTUALLY WON the Super Bowl.The Ravens had done absolutely nothing prior to the year they won the SB. Sure, they have been good many years AFTER they won, but they haven't won another SB since. I don't see how you can put them in the "been there and have an advantage" camp, as they haven't won anything since they won.When NE played the Rams the first time, they were a hodge podge of relative no names. A few guys were around from when they lost to the Packers 5-6 years before (emphasis on lost), so they have to count in the "no experience winning a SB" camp. Yes, they won twice afterwards (score two in the "been there and won again" category) but they also lost to the Giants (so score one in the "never won before" category for NYG). IMO, that makes the Pats a net 2-2 (2 points in each category).The Bucs were one of the best teams for 4-5 years, but they had 1 playoff win in the previous 20 seasons prior to the 2002 season.If your intent was to say that teams with playoff experience that have had several decent seasons and THEN winning the SB, that is not how things came across (and would probably not hold true either, but I'd have to check). Were you really trying to say that teams that were decent for a few years have the advantage in winning a SB?Or do you really think that the results of the 70s and early 80s Steelers somehow has a bearing on the 2011 Super Bowl?
Click to expand...
facts? We don't need your stinking facts. who needs em when there is smack to be tossed around
 
The reality is that the impact Super Bowl experience has on the outcome of a given Super Bowl is impossible to measure. You could do some correlation statistics but you'd just end up with a nice little post hoc-proctor hoc argument.

I think about it this way: any team that makes it to the Super Bowl more than once within a three or four year period is likely a very good team. We see teams (lately, in the NFC) ride hot streaks to the big show pretty frequently. But getting there more than once is no accident. My conclusion from this that any team with Super Bowl experience is simply more likely to be the better team, and therefore win more Super Bowls than they lose.

I think the best team will win Sunday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin said:
This is not a direct shot at MOP, but "having been there before" is one of the least pertinent reasons to side with a team that I can think of. Going back the past 10-12 years . . .The Colts had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Saints that had problems even winning a playoff game up until then.The Patriots had been there and won several times before . . . and lost to the Giants who collectively really hadn't been there before.The Buccaneers had been the doormats of the NFL for many of their seasons . . . and they beat a Raiders team that had been solid for several years filled with vets (Rice, Brown, Gannon, Romanoski, Woodson, Woodson, Garner, etc.).The Ravens hadn't even had a winning season since being reconsistuted in BAL, let alone won a playoff game . . . yet they still won.The Rams had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Pats who hadn't really been there before in terms of who was still on the roster.Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.People can say what they want about who they think will win, but "having won before" is not the greatest of arguments in my book. Every year and every team is different . . .
Click to expand...
You just got :lmao: son... Stick to the guppie pool.
 
T.Rex said:
David Yudkin said:
This is not a direct shot at MOP, but "having been there before" is one of the least pertinent reasons to side with a team that I can think of. Going back the past 10-12 years . . .The Colts had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Saints that had problems even winning a playoff game up until then.The Patriots had been there and won several times before . . . and lost to the Giants who collectively really hadn't been there before.The Buccaneers had been the doormats of the NFL for many of their seasons . . . and they beat a Raiders team that had been solid for several years filled with vets (Rice, Brown, Gannon, Romanoski, Woodson, Woodson, Garner, etc.).The Ravens hadn't even had a winning season since being reconsistuted in BAL, let alone won a playoff game . . . yet they still won.The Rams had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Pats who hadn't really been there before in terms of who was still on the roster.Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.People can say what they want about who they think will win, but "having won before" is not the greatest of arguments in my book. Every year and every team is different . . .
Click to expand...
You just got :own3d: son... Stick to the guppie pool.
Click to expand...
:thumbup: :shrug:
 
David Yudkin said:
This is not a direct shot at MOP, but "having been there before" is one of the least pertinent reasons to side with a team that I can think of. Going back the past 10-12 years . . .The Colts had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Saints that had problems even winning a playoff game up until then.The Patriots had been there and won several times before . . . and lost to the Giants who collectively really hadn't been there before.The Buccaneers had been the doormats of the NFL for many of their seasons . . . and they beat a Raiders team that had been solid for several years filled with vets (Rice, Brown, Gannon, Romanoski, Woodson, Woodson, Garner, etc.).The Ravens hadn't even had a winning season since being reconsistuted in BAL, let alone won a playoff game . . . yet they still won.The Rams had been there and won before . . . and lost to the Pats who hadn't really been there before in terms of who was still on the roster.Almost half the teams in the past decade had very little track record of winning and several of them beat teams that had recently won Super Bowls.People can say what they want about who they think will win, but "having won before" is not the greatest of arguments in my book. Every year and every team is different . . .
Click to expand...
Why do you have to always use History and Facts to prove that your correct? :goodposting:
 
Ministry of Pain said:
So can Green Bay win the game? I don't think the chances are very high but they absolutely must play mistake free football and they also have to score I believe twice on some busted coverage. If they get spotted something like 14 and then don't turn the ball over I would say they have a chance but Green Bay having a chance vs a dynasty team like Pittsburgh that I can get +2.5 even today…sorry but I am all over Pittsburgh in this contest so I take the Steelers and the +2.5.
Click to expand...
Way to leave yourself an out. Of course the Packers are going to score two TD's on "busted coverage". Rodgers will likely throw two TD's, and you dont usually do that when there is good coverage.

The Packers WR's are a mismatch against the Steelers DB's, there should be alot of "busted coverage".

As for the Steelers dominating in the rushing game, im not so sure. Mendehall is a more proven back than Starks, but taking Starks +25.5 yards at even money over Mendenhall might be the best bet of this game. I might be swayed by my Starks love, but if you look at the facts, this look like a great bet. Starks is the leading rusher in the playoffs. Pouncey is out. The Steelers have a great run D, but they will have to sell out to slow down Rodgers and that spread offense. The Packers are the favorite and are more likely to be protecting a lead at the end of the game. I think its better than 50/50 that Starks outrushes Mendenhall outright. Im not so sre Mendenhall will rush for much more than the 25.5 yards Starks is getting before the game even starts.

Mendenhall 18 rushes, 59 yards, 1 rec, 5 yards

Starks 20 rushes, 74 yards, 2 rec, 21 yards

Packers 27

Steelers 16

 
The Packers are the favorite and are more likely to be protecting a lead at the end of the game.

You think because the betting line is Packers -2.5 they are more likely to be protecting a lead?

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Please let me say to the Green Bay Nation and some of the great posters we have on this board…don't feel like you need to plaster a lot of stats on the season or convince me how good Rodgers is, or defend your Packers, I've been watching the playoffs and I understand. The reality is that this team was 8-6 and on the verge of being eliminated from the playoffs and then as Rodgers has said thru the media have ripped off 5 in a row when they were on the cusp of elimination. They got hot at the right time but this is far from a dominating team.
Click to expand...
Wierd, the Packers got hot when Rodgers came back from injury after losing back to back games with Flynn at QB. The Packers are 13-4 this season with Rodgers at QB. The Steelers 13-3 with Ben at QB, and if God wasnt punishing Steve Johnson, they would have been 12-4. If you want to make an argument for why the Packers are far from a dominating team, this isnt it.

The fact that these are the best reasons people can come up with to like the Steelers over the Packers just goes to show how good of a bet the Packers actually are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel bad for MoP. He's gotten caught up in the Steeler-bashing mob that moves from thread to thread...

Personally I like his posts. And I certainly see no need to get snippy just b/c he picked the Steelers getting the points.

I swear some people are just beside themselves that the Steelers are in the SB.

 
Stillers Jr. said:
I feel bad for MoP. He's gotten caught up in the Steeler-bashing mob that moves from thread to thread...Personally I like his posts. And I certainly see no need to get snippy just b/c he picked the Steelers getting the points.I swear some people are just beside themselves that the Steelers are in the SB.
Click to expand...
Who is bashing the Steelers, or being snippy with MOP? Who is besides themselves that the Steelers are in the SB? :excited:
 
Ministry of Pain said:
The reality is that this team was 8-6 and on the verge of being eliminated from the playoffs and then as Rodgers has said thru the media have ripped off 5 in a row when they were on the cusp of elimination. They got hot at the right time but this is far from a dominating team.
Click to expand...
The reality is you must not have looked the their point differential this year or the fact they were never down by more than 7 points in any game.Also, The Packers have spent an average of 35:12 minutes per game in the lead compared with an average of 9:44 per game trailing.

They are more dominating than you think.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Go deep said:
Ministry of Pain said:
So can Green Bay win the game? I don't think the chances are very high but they absolutely must play mistake free football and they also have to score I believe twice on some busted coverage. If they get spotted something like 14 and then don't turn the ball over I would say they have a chance but Green Bay having a chance vs a dynasty team like Pittsburgh that I can get +2.5 even today…sorry but I am all over Pittsburgh in this contest so I take the Steelers and the +2.5.
Click to expand...
Way to leave yourself an out. Of course the Packers are going to score two TD's on "busted coverage". Rodgers will likely throw two TD's, and you dont usually do that when there is good coverage.

The Packers WR's are a mismatch against the Steelers DB's, there should be alot of "busted coverage".

As for the Steelers dominating in the rushing game, im not so sure. Mendehall is a more proven back than Starks, but taking Starks +25.5 yards at even money over Mendenhall might be the best bet of this game. I might be swayed by my Starks love, but if you look at the facts, this look like a great bet. Starks is the leading rusher in the playoffs. Pouncey is out. The Steelers have a great run D, but they will have to sell out to slow down Rodgers and that spread offense. The Packers are the favorite and are more likely to be protecting a lead at the end of the game. I think its better than 50/50 that Starks outrushes Mendenhall outright. Im not so sre Mendenhall will rush for much more than the 25.5 yards Starks is getting before the game even starts.

Mendenhall 18 rushes, 59 yards, 1 rec, 5 yards

Starks 20 rushes, 74 yards, 2 rec, 21 yards

Packers 27

Steelers 16
Click to expand...
You can forget that dream
 
Sheriff66 said:
Go deep said:
Ministry of Pain said:
So can Green Bay win the game? I don't think the chances are very high but they absolutely must play mistake free football and they also have to score I believe twice on some busted coverage. If they get spotted something like 14 and then don't turn the ball over I would say they have a chance but Green Bay having a chance vs a dynasty team like Pittsburgh that I can get +2.5 even today…sorry but I am all over Pittsburgh in this contest so I take the Steelers and the +2.5.
Click to expand...
Way to leave yourself an out. Of course the Packers are going to score two TD's on "busted coverage". Rodgers will likely throw two TD's, and you dont usually do that when there is good coverage.

The Packers WR's are a mismatch against the Steelers DB's, there should be alot of "busted coverage".

As for the Steelers dominating in the rushing game, im not so sure. Mendehall is a more proven back than Starks, but taking Starks +25.5 yards at even money over Mendenhall might be the best bet of this game. I might be swayed by my Starks love, but if you look at the facts, this look like a great bet. Starks is the leading rusher in the playoffs. Pouncey is out. The Steelers have a great run D, but they will have to sell out to slow down Rodgers and that spread offense. The Packers are the favorite and are more likely to be protecting a lead at the end of the game. I think its better than 50/50 that Starks outrushes Mendenhall outright. Im not so sre Mendenhall will rush for much more than the 25.5 yards Starks is getting before the game even starts.

Mendenhall 18 rushes, 59 yards, 1 rec, 5 yards

Starks 20 rushes, 74 yards, 2 rec, 21 yards

Packers 27

Steelers 16
Click to expand...
You can forget that dream
Click to expand...
Ben Jarvis Green-Ellis rushed for 87 aginst the Steelers this season and i expect a similar outcome in this game as that game, with a few less points on both sides.

 
I think it's funny that MOP took away all the credit for GB being 8-6, ALMOST missing the playoffs and JUST getting hot at the right time, however, he gave 100% credit to the Steelers when they won the SB from the exact same predicament a few years ago. :thumbdown:

 
Name a QB of Rodgers' caliber who didn't absolutely shred the Pittsburgh defense this year. I see Brady and Brees who both had their way with the Steelers' Defense this year, and I don't see another QB they faced that's as good as Rodgers.

I think Rodgers will shred that secondary as well.

 
Go deep said:
Stillers Jr. said:
I feel bad for MoP. He's gotten caught up in the Steeler-bashing mob that moves from thread to thread...

Personally I like his posts. And I certainly see no need to get snippy just b/c he picked the Steelers getting the points.

I swear some people are just beside themselves that the Steelers are in the SB.
Click to expand...
Who is bashing the Steelers, or being snippy with MOP? Who is besides themselves that the Steelers are in the SB? :thumbup:
Click to expand...
You are...you've posted countless times in every thread involving the Steelers my friend.
 
Sheriff66 said:
Go deep said:
Ben Jarvis Green-Ellis rushed for 87 aginst the Steelers this season and i expect a similar outcome in this game as that game, with a few less points on both sides.
Click to expand...
Don't hold your breath on that
Click to expand...
If GB's hopes rely on Starks, they are in big trouble. According to "Go Deep," he's the next Jim Brown.And if Starks shreds the Steelers, I will gladly eat crow.
 
Clorox said:
Ookie Pringle said:
Clorox said:
Sheriff66 said:
Go deep said:
Ben Jarvis Green-Ellis rushed for 87 aginst the Steelers this season and i expect a similar outcome in this game as that game, with a few less points on both sides.
Click to expand...
Don't hold your breath on that
Click to expand...
According to "Go Deep," he's the next Jim Brown.
Click to expand...
:link:
Click to expand...
LOL, sorry, I got overzealous. But he's been pimping Starks non-stop for the last two weeks.
Click to expand...
Ok...you were acting like a Bears fan and we know Steelers fans are better than that.
 
Eric Stratton said:
Ministry of Pain said:
The reality is that this team was 8-6 and on the verge of being eliminated from the playoffs and then as Rodgers has said thru the media have ripped off 5 in a row when they were on the cusp of elimination. They got hot at the right time but this is far from a dominating team.
Click to expand...
The reality is you must not have looked the their point differential this year or the fact they were never down by more than 7 points in any game.Also, The Packers have spent an average of 35:12 minutes per game in the lead compared with an average of 9:44 per game trailing.

They are more dominating than you think.
Click to expand...
I am going to second this...it is pretty hard to believe that this guy has watched any Packers games this season if he is thinking this will be an easy win for Pitt, as over the course of EVERY game this season, the pack has either been in a dogfight or has been destroying teams...2 of their losses came in overtime in the middle of the season with almost all of their lbs out including Clay Mathhews for those games, and two of their other losses came with Rodgers out...not to say Pitt did not have injuries, but when they involve an all pro that is significant. I am not saying that the Pack are going to pull it out because I think it will come down to their kicker, but I do not understand how anyone thinks Pitt will win this in a walk or how anyone would feel comfortable to BACK THE TRUCK UP and actually bet money.Also, you do know Pouncy is out, right? I thought it was real funny how they played that out all week, obviously trying to deflect pressure off the goat center who almost cost them the Jets game...we shall see how he holds up against a player who in all seriousness looks like a all pro stud in the making. I am guessing that it mint not be pretty.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
NFL Strength of Schedule
Replies
25
Views
1K
Uruk-Hai
Uruk-Hai
Joey Wright
2025 Scott Fish Bowl Entry Giveaway!
Replies
43
Views
818
Drunken Cowboy
D
ChiefD
**OFFICIAL 2025 Draft Thread - Green Bay Opens The Door For Guests**
38 39 40
Replies
2K
Views
30K
JohnnyU
JohnnyU

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top