***Official Super Bowl XLV Game Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

I found my 5th re-watching of the game last night very enjoyable - not as good as the first or second, but probably better than the 4th. I'm expecting to get in my 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th re-watchings this weekend, and am very excited looking forward to next week, when I will get into double digits. I'll keep everyone posted on my progress. Perhaps a poll is in order - Which number of Superbowl re-watchings is the ideal amount?

Did Clark tip that third down throw to Jennings?

 

[Mr.Pack]

According to the seeding of Steelers opponents, Steelers had the easiest playoff schedule of any SB team in history...Ravens 5th seedJets 6th seedPackers 6th seed

Yes but judging teams by their playoff seeding is not always indicative of their quality.

Along these lines, I hate when anyone suggests that a team like this year's Packers is among the most impressive Super Bowl winning teams ever (just an example) because their postseason schedule was so tough. Um, it was so tough because they were only a wild card team. You can't say they are a more impressive champion than a great team that had a great regular season, which enabled them to have an easier postseason schedule (because they had a bye and possibly two home games against lower seeds, as opposed to three road games vs all of the high seeds), and then went on to win it all. A great regular season has to count for something.Let me put it this way:Team A goes 14-2 and then wins the Super Bowl by beating a 4 seed and both 2 seeds.Team B goes 10-6 and then wins the Super Bowl by beating the 1, 2 and 3 seeds in their conference and then the 2 seed in the SB.Which team was better? Team A, of course.

So what is your point exactly?I'm kinda lost here. isn't the fact that a Wildcard team that wins 3 games on the road beating the #1, #2, & #3 seeds as a 6 seed a most impressive run?

 

[Reepicheep]

According to the seeding of Steelers opponents, Steelers had the easiest playoff schedule of any SB team in history...

Ravens 5th seed

Jets 6th seed

Packers 6th seed

Yes but judging teams by their playoff seeding is not always indicative of their quality.

Along these lines, I hate when anyone suggests that a team like this year's Packers is among the most impressive Super Bowl winning teams ever (just an example) because their postseason schedule was so tough. Um, it was so tough because they were only a wild card team. You can't say they are a more impressive champion than a great team that had a great regular season, which enabled them to have an easier postseason schedule (because they had a bye and possibly two home games against lower seeds, as opposed to three road games vs all of the high seeds), and then went on to win it all. A great regular season has to count for something.Let me put it this way:

Team A goes 14-2 and then wins the Super Bowl by beating a 4 seed and both 2 seeds.

Team B goes 10-6 and then wins the Super Bowl by beating the 1, 2 and 3 seeds in their conference and then the 2 seed in the SB.

Which team was better? Team A, of course.

So what is your point exactly?I'm kinda lost here. isn't the fact that a Wildcard team that wins 3 games on the road beating the #1, #2, & #3 seeds as a 6 seed a most impressive run?

For me it depends on if you're talking about *just* the postseason run or the season as a whole. For example, if the Patriots had beat the Giants in SB 42, it would have been a more impressive "run" than what the Giants accomplished by beating the Patriots. The Giants were the underdog that beat one of the best teams in NFL history. The Patriots were playing to be the best team in NFL history.But even with the whole season in mind, it sort of depends. We have all seen a team build an impressive-looking record based on a weak schedule go on to fold in the playoffs. For example, the Falcons aren't a bad team, but they did get six of their wins from the NFC West and the Panthers, and went on to get blown out in the playoffs. If they had, for example, drawn the Seahawks, then the Bears to get to the Super Bowl . . . not an especially impressive run.

So it all kind of depends. Either way I don't care, a SB championship is an SB championship no matter how it happened, they don't exactly hand the things out as party favors.

 

[Debbie Downer]

Packers got lucky..

 

[Reepicheep]

A follow-up thought from my previous post . . .

With the Packers in particular, they have to be one of the best 10-6 teams in the history of football. There are the much-publicized stats of never trailing by more than 7, and never losing by more than 4. But then consider the competition they faced. I saw these numbers in another thread (or another site? Not sure.):

Over the course of the regular season and playoffs, the Packers played against playoff teams 10 times. Eight of those games were road games, plus one home game and one neutral site. They went 7-3 in those games.

By comparison, the 2007 Giants played also 10 playoff teams, with 5 road, 4 home, one neutral, and went 5-5 overall in those games. On the season their 6 losses came by a total of 91 points.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Packers got lucky..

 

[Steeler]

I found my 5th re-watching of the game last night very enjoyable - not as good as the first or second, but probably better than the 4th. I'm expecting to get in my 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th re-watchings this weekend, and am very excited looking forward to next week, when I will get into double digits. I'll keep everyone posted on my progress. Perhaps a poll is in order - Which number of Superbowl re-watchings is the ideal amount?

I think it depends on if you have a way to get it off your DVR and archive permanently (Say on DVD/Blu-ray or backed up on a computer hard drive). If not, then you keep watching the damn thing until you've got it memorized. I am able to save recordings long-term so I am pacing myself.

I was planning to do the same thing as well... if the Steelers won. I guess I'll have to watch Super Bowl 43 again soon

 

[Mr.Pack]

Packers got lucky..

 

[GunslingerEnder]

Packers got lucky..

Whew! Glad you pointed that out.I thought at first she said "Mr. Pack got lucky."We all know that's not true.

 

[cobalt_27]

According to the seeding of Steelers opponents, Steelers had the easiest playoff schedule of any SB team in history...Ravens 5th seedJets 6th seedPackers 6th seed

Yes but judging teams by their playoff seeding is not always indicative of their quality.

Along these lines, I hate when anyone suggests that a team like this year's Packers is among the most impressive Super Bowl winning teams ever (just an example) because their postseason schedule was so tough. Um, it was so tough because they were only a wild card team. You can't say they are a more impressive champion than a great team that had a great regular season, which enabled them to have an easier postseason schedule (because they had a bye and possibly two home games against lower seeds, as opposed to three road games vs all of the high seeds), and then went on to win it all. A great regular season has to count for something.Let me put it this way:Team A goes 14-2 and then wins the Super Bowl by beating a 4 seed and both 2 seeds.Team B goes 10-6 and then wins the Super Bowl by beating the 1, 2 and 3 seeds in their conference and then the 2 seed in the SB.Which team was better? Team A, of course.

I don't think these examples illustrate your point. The better overall season clearly goes to Team A. But, I can't think of a better postseason run than the Packers had, beating the 1, 2, 3 conference seeds on consecutive weeks on the road and then beating the #2 seed in the other conference for a SB title. In fact, the only thing more impressive is if they had beaten the Patriots who were the 1 seed. Statistically, you can't have a better postseason than that. And, qualitatively, just watching how the Packers beat their playoff opponents week after week...no team in history had a more impressive run than what they had.

 

[Debbie Downer]

Packers got lucky..

Whew! Glad you pointed that out.I thought at first she said "Mr. Pack got lucky."We all know that's not true.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Packers got lucky..

Whew! Glad you pointed that out.I thought at first she said "Mr. Pack got lucky."We all know that's not true.

 

[poopdawg]

Leabeau to stick around 1 more year, to sign contract on 12/16.

Lamarr Woodley to be franchised by Friday 12/18. A deal could be struck before then?

Flozell Adams postpones any retirement plans. He had previously said "1 more year", but really likes where he is right now. So no decision has been made yet.

Bruce Arians is sticking around at least 1 more year also.

Well three out of four ain't bad!

 

[cr8f]

History Shows The Packers Always Play in Back to Back Super Bowls:

We all know the storied past of the Green Bay Packers, especially during the Lombardi era. But an often overlooked fact about this organization is that once they win a Super Bowl, they make it back the following year to fight for another title.

The first time the Packers got to hoist the Super Bowl trophy in 1966 was quickly followed up with another triumphant trip in 1967. It wasn’t until 30 years later that the Packers returned to the Super Bowl in 1996 to bring the Lombardi trophy home to Green Bay. Fortunately for the lifelong diehard Packers fans, they didn’t have to wait nearly as long for their next trip as they played again for the title in 1997.

Nor will they have to wait next year.

Throw in the fact that the Green Bay Packers are the last NFC Champions to make repeat trips to the Super Bowl, the Lambeau faithful can feel confident when booking trips to Indy for next February.

 

[smackdaddies]

History Shows The Packers Always Play in Back to Back Super Bowls:

We all know the storied past of the Green Bay Packers, especially during the Lombardi era. But an often overlooked fact about this organization is that once they win a Super Bowl, they make it back the following year to fight for another title.

The first time the Packers got to hoist the Super Bowl trophy in 1966 was quickly followed up with another triumphant trip in 1967. It wasn’t until 30 years later that the Packers returned to the Super Bowl in 1996 to bring the Lombardi trophy home to Green Bay. Fortunately for the lifelong diehard Packers fans, they didn’t have to wait nearly as long for their next trip as they played again for the title in 1997.

Nor will they have to wait next year.

Throw in the fact that the Green Bay Packers are the last NFC Champions to make repeat trips to the Super Bowl, the Lambeau faithful can feel confident when booking trips to Indy for next February.

I heard this arguement on a local call in show, and it is still the stupidist thing I ever have heard or read.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

History Shows The Packers Always Play in Back to Back Super Bowls:

We all know the storied past of the Green Bay Packers, especially during the Lombardi era. But an often overlooked fact about this organization is that once they win a Super Bowl, they make it back the following year to fight for another title.

The first time the Packers got to hoist the Super Bowl trophy in 1966 was quickly followed up with another triumphant trip in 1967. It wasn’t until 30 years later that the Packers returned to the Super Bowl in 1996 to bring the Lombardi trophy home to Green Bay. Fortunately for the lifelong diehard Packers fans, they didn’t have to wait nearly as long for their next trip as they played again for the title in 1997.

Nor will they have to wait next year.

Throw in the fact that the Green Bay Packers are the last NFC Champions to make repeat trips to the Super Bowl, the Lambeau faithful can feel confident when booking trips to Indy for next February.

I heard this arguement on a local call in show, and it is still the stupidist thing I ever have heard or read.

Agreed...

 

[tec79]

the first three paragraphs are an observation based upon historical occurrences. I doubt many people will be acting on (i.e. purchasing tickets in Indy today) the last statement .

 

[smackdaddies]

the first three paragraphs are an observation based upon historical occurrences. I doubt many people will be acting on (i.e. purchasing tickets in Indy today) the last statement .

There really are packer fans who have had so much kool aid they believe that. Crazy stupid.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't think history has anything to do with it, but Green Bay is primed for repeated runs at the title. It would be coincidence. I don't see anyone in the NFC that looks as good as the Packers. Heck they just dismantled the entire conference in the span of 5 weeks.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

I don't think history has anything to do with it, but Green Bay is primed for repeated runs at the title. It would be coincidence. I don't see anyone in the NFC that looks as good as the Packers. Heck they just dismantled the entire conference in the span of 5 weeks.

As of right now, and a lot can change before we see football again, I agree with this statement.

Falcons? Not there yet.

Eagles? Nope

Bears? Nope

Bucs? Nah.

Saints? Probably the best chance to beat the Pack.

Those are the upper tier NFC teams. (According to this past season's play...and like I said, a lot can happen)

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't think history has anything to do with it, but Green Bay is primed for repeated runs at the title. It would be coincidence. I don't see anyone in the NFC that looks as good as the Packers. Heck they just dismantled the entire conference in the span of 5 weeks.

As of right now, and a lot can change before we see football again, I agree with this statement.

Falcons? Not there yet.

Eagles? Nope

Bears? Nope

Bucs? Nah.

Saints? Probably the best chance to beat the Pack.

Those are the upper tier NFC teams. (According to this past season's play...and like I said, a lot can happen)

I agree that a lot can happen. I actually think the NFC North might be the toughest division in the conference. The Bears are actually improving. The Lions are on the upswing and the Vikings won't have the albatross of Favre hanging over them.

 

[sho nuff]

North and the South are some tough conferences. East always looks tough too...and anything can happen there.

 

[Pipes]

I don't think history has anything to do with it, but Green Bay is primed for repeated runs at the title. It would be coincidence. I don't see anyone in the NFC that looks as good as the Packers. Heck they just dismantled the entire conference in the span of 5 weeks.

The problem is the same could be said of the 96 Packers. That team was loaded and yet only won 1 Superbowl. I felt the same about that team as you do about this team. I agree with you though the Packers appear like they will be an upper echelon team for the next few years...I'm just not going to count on this team winning multiple championships. Do I think they can? Absolutely but there have been too many cases of young, talented teams only winning 1.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't think history has anything to do with it, but Green Bay is primed for repeated runs at the title. It would be coincidence. I don't see anyone in the NFC that looks as good as the Packers. Heck they just dismantled the entire conference in the span of 5 weeks.

The problem is the same could be said of the 96 Packers. That team was loaded and yet only won 1 Superbowl. I felt the same about that team as you do about this team. I agree with you though the Packers appear like they will be an upper echelon team for the next few years...I'm just not going to count on this team winning multiple championships. Do I think they can? Absolutely but there have been too many cases of young, talented teams only winning 1.

Anything can happen. The 96 team did get back the following season but I think they got derailed by Mike Holmgren's decision to take the Seattle gig. That ain't happening to this team in the near term.

 

[Ghost Rider]

No, they got derailed by a better team that was on a mission.

 

[sho nuff]

No, they got derailed by a better team that was on a mission.

Well...technically they didn't really get derailed by Holmgren til the following year (that and a nice missed fumble call on Rice and Owens finally holding on to a ball in that game).

 

[Sabertooth]

No, they got derailed by a better team that was on a mission.

Denver was not going to be denied that season. I think Green Bay this past season was very reminiscent of that Denver team. It was just their time.

 

[belljr]

I don't think history has anything to do with it, but Green Bay is primed for repeated runs at the title. It would be coincidence. I don't see anyone in the NFC that looks as good as the Packers. Heck they just dismantled the entire conference in the span of 5 weeks.

As of right now, and a lot can change before we see football again, I agree with this statement.

Falcons? Not there yet.

Eagles? Nope

Bears? Nope

Bucs? Nah.

Saints? Probably the best chance to beat the Pack.

Those are the upper tier NFC teams. (According to this past season's play...and like I said, a lot can happen)

I agree that a lot can happen. I actually think the NFC North might be the toughest division in the conference. The Bears are actually improving. The Lions are on the upswing and the Vikings won't have the albatross of Favre hanging over them.

I would not be surprised to see them make the playoffs this year.... :serious:

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't think history has anything to do with it, but Green Bay is primed for repeated runs at the title. It would be coincidence. I don't see anyone in the NFC that looks as good as the Packers. Heck they just dismantled the entire conference in the span of 5 weeks.

As of right now, and a lot can change before we see football again, I agree with this statement.

Falcons? Not there yet.

Eagles? Nope

Bears? Nope

Bucs? Nah.

Saints? Probably the best chance to beat the Pack.

Those are the upper tier NFC teams. (According to this past season's play...and like I said, a lot can happen)

I agree that a lot can happen. I actually think the NFC North might be the toughest division in the conference. The Bears are actually improving. The Lions are on the upswing and the Vikings won't have the albatross of Favre hanging over them.

I would not be surprised to see them make the playoffs this year.... :serious:

If Stafford stay healthy, I could see it. Their offense is on the verge.

 

[Pipes]

No, they got derailed by a better team that was on a mission.

Well...technically they didn't really get derailed by Holmgren til the following year (that and a nice missed fumble call on Rice and Owens finally holding on to a ball in that game).

That just goes to show you though the Packers run into a hot team one year, a questionable call and a great individual play knocks them out the next year and suddenly their window for that particular team was closed. Sure they retooled and had a great shot in 2003 and then again in 2007 but I just want to ground Packer fans' expectations a little bit.With that being said it's hard to not be excited about the next few Packer seasons.

 

[Pipes]

No, they got derailed by a better team that was on a mission.

Denver was not going to be denied that season. I think Green Bay this past season was very reminiscent of that Denver team. It was just their time.

I agree...hopefully the next couple of years' won't be some elses time. Though with their young and very talented roster the Packers' prospects for next year are as good as anyones.

 

[sho nuff]

No, they got derailed by a better team that was on a mission.

Well...technically they didn't really get derailed by Holmgren til the following year (that and a nice missed fumble call on Rice and Owens finally holding on to a ball in that game).

That just goes to show you though the Packers run into a hot team one year, a questionable call and a great individual play knocks them out the next year and suddenly their window for that particular team was closed. Sure they retooled and had a great shot in 2003 and then again in 2007 but I just want to ground Packer fans' expectations a little bit.With that being said it's hard to not be excited about the next few Packer seasons.

I agree the expectations are sky high right now.I think it has to do with the relative youth of this team as compared to those teams from the mid 90s.

 

[Jake22]

No, they got derailed by a better team that was on a mission.

Well...technically they didn't really get derailed by Holmgren til the following year (that and a nice missed fumble call on Rice and Owens finally holding on to a ball in that game).

That just goes to show you though the Packers run into a hot team one year, a questionable call and a great individual play knocks them out the next year and suddenly their window for that particular team was closed. Sure they retooled and had a great shot in 2003 and then again in 2007 but I just want to ground Packer fans' expectations a little bit.

Exactly...the Packers played one of the most overrated #1 seeds in recent memory ( Yes, Atlanta, who lost to Dennis Dixon BTW), they beat a third string QB in Chicago in the playoffs when Rodgers didn't do anything in the second half of that game, and basically had to win out in the regular season just to get into the playoffs, and played a flat Steelers team that handed them 21 points on turnovers in the SB, perfect storm this year. Congrats but there are ALOT of little things that had one of them happened your not even in the SB, I also think R.Grant going down earlier in the season actually HELPED them, Rodgers is the man and not having Grant made the offense rely on him more and it SHOULD'VE been that way when Grant was healthy, big mistake to change that next year but I'm sure they will...enjoy it but every year is different, that's just how it is these days.

 

[Sabertooth]

No, they got derailed by a better team that was on a mission.

Well...technically they didn't really get derailed by Holmgren til the following year (that and a nice missed fumble call on Rice and Owens finally holding on to a ball in that game).

That just goes to show you though the Packers run into a hot team one year, a questionable call and a great individual play knocks them out the next year and suddenly their window for that particular team was closed. Sure they retooled and had a great shot in 2003 and then again in 2007 but I just want to ground Packer fans' expectations a little bit.

Exactly...the Packers played one of the most overrated #1 seeds in recent memory ( Yes, Atlanta, who lost to Dennis Dixon BTW), they beat a third string QB in Chicago in the playoffs when Rodgers didn't do anything in the second half of that game, and basically had to win out in the regular season just to get into the playoffs, and played a flat Steelers team that handed them 21 points on turnovers in the SB, perfect storm this year. Congrats but there are ALOT of little things that had one of them happened your not even in the SB, I also think R.Grant going down earlier in the season actually HELPED them, Rodgers is the man and not having Grant made the offense rely on him more and it SHOULD'VE been that way when Grant was healthy, big mistake to change that next year but I'm sure they will...enjoy it but every year is different, that's just how it is these days.

You can look at it that way. Atlanta wasn't as good as their record but lets face it, they beat out the defending Super Bowl champs for that division title. The beat the first, second, and third string quarterback in adverse conditions in Chicago. And they beat the white-hot Eagles at home. Losing Ryan Grant helped them in no way at all. None. I think getting 15 players back from IR will only help them as well. I guess this is a good illustration of how two people can look at the same facts and come away with totally different interpretations.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

This discussion reminds me of a recent Bob McGinn colum (post-superbowl) that began with this story:

It was January 1984, my first Super Bowl, and across the table in the coffee shop at the Los Angeles Raiders' hotel sat the team's veteran equipment manager, **** Romanski.A Milwaukee native, Romanski was regaling me with tales about the Raiders' past, their present and, especially, their future.Some others wearing silver and black, including one of the team's personnel people if memory serves, walked in. Everyone was talking about the group of top young players who were injured and wouldn't even be playing in the 18th Super BowlThe message, that the Raiders were a powerhouse now and would be in the future, was underscored by owner Al Davis in his imitable style after the 38-9 shellacking of the Washington Redskins at old Tampa Stadium."We could have scored 50," Davis crowed as Romanski and his staff tidied up in that cramped locker room. "This team will be great for years."Marcus Allen, the MVP of that Super Bowl, was 23. So was another future Hall of Famer, Howie Long.Well, the Raiders made the playoffs each of the next two seasons, losing their first game both times. Most of those young studs failed to develop. Their first-round draft choices from 1985-'87 were Jessie Hester, Bob Buczkowski and John Clay.They've been back to one Super Bowl in the intervening 27 years. They're still looking for that fourth Lombardi Trophy.