Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I often see comments made assuming teams winning or losing later Super Bowl's even if a previous Super Bowl they competed had turned out differently, but I do not think it is that simple.
Let me explain a little better. I will use the recent New England Patriots and the early 90's Buffalo Bills as examples.
I have seen in discussions on Tom Brady, for example, dissenters say things like, "Take away Adam Vinatieri and Brady would be no more successful than Peyton Manning." Does that argument have some merit? Maybe, maybe not, but think of it this way. Let's say Vinatieri doesn't make that kick against Oakland in the snow and the Pats lose that game. Is it right to just assume they still would have won SB's 38 and 39? I do not think so. You have to think the confidence of winning games in the fashions in which they beat the Raiders and Rams gave them confidence under pressure in later playoff games, like SB 38. Let's say Vinatieri makes the kick against Oakland, but missed the one at the end of the SB and the Rams go on to win in overtime. Is it right to assume that the Patriots offense plays with such confidence and poise in the 4th quarter against the Panthers in SB38 if their previous Super Bowl had been a game in which they blew a 4th quarter lead and lost, as opposed to blowing a lead, but still making enough plays to win? You have to figure that the confidence of having a clutch kicker like Vinatieir was a huge psychological boost in any close game the Pats played over the last few years. However, take away his big clutch kicks in January '02 and it is very possible that that edge is not there for the next few years and the Patriots end up being one of those perennial playoff teams that could never quite get over the hump, ala the Philadelphia Eagles. Yes, that is quite a stretch, but maybe so is just assuming the Patriots would still be two-time SB champs if they didn't win it in '01.
What about the Buffalo Bills of the early 90's? Let's say Scott Norwood makes that FG and they win the SB over the Giants. Don't you think the confidence of having already won a Super Bowl would have helped them in future SB's? In all fairness, they probably still wouldn't have beaten Washington or Dallas in the next two (since those teams were so much better than them), but in the 4th appearance, they, despite outplaying Dallas in the first half, played tight and too careful. They were playing like a team that was terrified of losing a 4th straight SB and as soon as Thurman Thomas' fumble was returned for a TD in the 3rd quarter, you could see the air go out of their tires, as if they thought, "here we go again." However, say they still had the mindset of a team that had already won a Super Bowl, they might have taken more chances in the first half and had a bigger lead at halftime. And just maybe Thomas' fumble doesn't psychologically destroy them.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Let me explain a little better. I will use the recent New England Patriots and the early 90's Buffalo Bills as examples.
I have seen in discussions on Tom Brady, for example, dissenters say things like, "Take away Adam Vinatieri and Brady would be no more successful than Peyton Manning." Does that argument have some merit? Maybe, maybe not, but think of it this way. Let's say Vinatieri doesn't make that kick against Oakland in the snow and the Pats lose that game. Is it right to just assume they still would have won SB's 38 and 39? I do not think so. You have to think the confidence of winning games in the fashions in which they beat the Raiders and Rams gave them confidence under pressure in later playoff games, like SB 38. Let's say Vinatieri makes the kick against Oakland, but missed the one at the end of the SB and the Rams go on to win in overtime. Is it right to assume that the Patriots offense plays with such confidence and poise in the 4th quarter against the Panthers in SB38 if their previous Super Bowl had been a game in which they blew a 4th quarter lead and lost, as opposed to blowing a lead, but still making enough plays to win? You have to figure that the confidence of having a clutch kicker like Vinatieir was a huge psychological boost in any close game the Pats played over the last few years. However, take away his big clutch kicks in January '02 and it is very possible that that edge is not there for the next few years and the Patriots end up being one of those perennial playoff teams that could never quite get over the hump, ala the Philadelphia Eagles. Yes, that is quite a stretch, but maybe so is just assuming the Patriots would still be two-time SB champs if they didn't win it in '01.
What about the Buffalo Bills of the early 90's? Let's say Scott Norwood makes that FG and they win the SB over the Giants. Don't you think the confidence of having already won a Super Bowl would have helped them in future SB's? In all fairness, they probably still wouldn't have beaten Washington or Dallas in the next two (since those teams were so much better than them), but in the 4th appearance, they, despite outplaying Dallas in the first half, played tight and too careful. They were playing like a team that was terrified of losing a 4th straight SB and as soon as Thurman Thomas' fumble was returned for a TD in the 3rd quarter, you could see the air go out of their tires, as if they thought, "here we go again." However, say they still had the mindset of a team that had already won a Super Bowl, they might have taken more chances in the first half and had a bigger lead at halftime. And just maybe Thomas' fumble doesn't psychologically destroy them.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
