whoever wins this SB...... (1 Viewer)

[brutha]

one of the weakest champs ever IMO. No, I don't hate any of teams left, no dog in this fight or out of it or whatever and no offense to fans of these teams (some of who are about to no doubt have a hissy at this) just IMO. None of these teams exactly impressed overall during their 08 season (of those left only PIT did most consider a top SB contender, if even one at all) and will certainly not go down as a "great" team. I believed and said this back in Nov and I stand by it. it's just that kinda year.

 

[thayman]

one of the weakest champs ever IMO. No, I don't hate any of teams left, no dog in this fight or out of it or whatever and no offense to fans of these teams (some of who are about to no doubt have a hissy at this) just IMO. None of these teams exactly impressed overall during their 08 season (of those left only PIT did most consider a top SB contender, if even one at all) and will certainly not go down as a "great" team. I believed and said this back in Nov and I stand by it. it's just that kinda year.

I find this year to be one of the most interesting. All the teams on pretty even footing, some great post-season games so far. So as a fan of the game and whose team didn't make the playoffs, I've been loving the playoffs so far.

 

[Avery]

Maybe no great "complete" teams left, but Pittsburgh's D could go down as one of the greats depending on how the rest of the games play out.

 

[Dentist]

one of the weakest champs ever IMO. No, I don't hate any of teams left, no dog in this fight or out of it or whatever and no offense to fans of these teams (some of who are about to no doubt have a hissy at this) just IMO. None of these teams exactly impressed overall during their 08 season (of those left only PIT did most consider a top SB contender, if even one at all) and will certainly not go down as a "great" team. I believed and said this back in Nov and I stand by it. it's just that kinda year.

definitely agree.Giants last year were an extremely weak champion though historically... as was 2001 pats and 2005 pittsburgh.if the nfc team wins though, we could be talking about a new level of worst champ ever.I don't think Baltimore or Pitt would be a 'bad' champ, just a nondescript one.As fans of football we just really missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity last year to say we'd seen the most dominant championship team ever.I'm getting pissed off thinking about it.

 

[Avery]

one of the weakest champs ever IMO. No, I don't hate any of teams left, no dog in this fight or out of it or whatever and no offense to fans of these teams (some of who are about to no doubt have a hissy at this) just IMO. None of these teams exactly impressed overall during their 08 season (of those left only PIT did most consider a top SB contender, if even one at all) and will certainly not go down as a "great" team. I believed and said this back in Nov and I stand by it. it's just that kinda year.

definitely agree.Giants last year were an extremely weak champion though historically... as was 2001 pats and 2005 pittsburgh.if the nfc team wins though, we could be talking about a new level of worst champ ever.I don't think Baltimore or Pitt would be a 'bad' champ, just a nondescript one.As fans of football we just really missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity last year to say we'd seen the most dominant championship team ever.I'm getting pissed off thinking about it.

It always strikes me as a bizarre argument that in one statement you can say that if the Pats one they would have been "the most dominant championship team ever" but since they didn't, the team that beat them is "an extremely weak champion."

 

[Mustang Man]

Glad you said it cause I have been thinking that for a while. This a year with no great teams. Any team minus Miami could have made a run at the SB.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It happens upsets and teams weakened by injury can quickly degrade brackets. The Jets Superbowl is a good example.

 

[Mustang Man]

one of the weakest champs ever IMO. No, I don't hate any of teams left, no dog in this fight or out of it or whatever and no offense to fans of these teams (some of who are about to no doubt have a hissy at this) just IMO. None of these teams exactly impressed overall during their 08 season (of those left only PIT did most consider a top SB contender, if even one at all) and will certainly not go down as a "great" team. I believed and said this back in Nov and I stand by it. it's just that kinda year.

definitely agree.Giants last year were an extremely weak champion though historically... as was 2001 pats and 2005 pittsburgh.if the nfc team wins though, we could be talking about a new level of worst champ ever.I don't think Baltimore or Pitt would be a 'bad' champ, just a nondescript one.As fans of football we just really missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity last year to say we'd seen the most dominant championship team ever.I'm getting pissed off thinking about it.

It always strikes me as a bizarre argument that in one statement you can say that if the Pats one they would have been "the most dominant championship team ever" but since they didn't, the team that beat them is "an extremely weak champion."

It is what you call an upset and that was the biggest ever. It does not mean that Giants where anything close to a great team last year. It just fell their way.

 

[Dentist]

one of the weakest champs ever IMO. No, I don't hate any of teams left, no dog in this fight or out of it or whatever and no offense to fans of these teams (some of who are about to no doubt have a hissy at this) just IMO. None of these teams exactly impressed overall during their 08 season (of those left only PIT did most consider a top SB contender, if even one at all) and will certainly not go down as a "great" team. I believed and said this back in Nov and I stand by it. it's just that kinda year.

definitely agree.Giants last year were an extremely weak champion though historically... as was 2001 pats and 2005 pittsburgh.if the nfc team wins though, we could be talking about a new level of worst champ ever.I don't think Baltimore or Pitt would be a 'bad' champ, just a nondescript one.As fans of football we just really missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity last year to say we'd seen the most dominant championship team ever.I'm getting pissed off thinking about it.

It always strikes me as a bizarre argument that in one statement you can say that if the Pats one they would have been "the most dominant championship team ever" but since they didn't, the team that beat them is "an extremely weak champion."

Variance is a real ##### - sometimes AA loses to QJo, but that doesn't mean it still isn't the most dominant starting hand ever.The Giants were highly beneficial of the fact they'd just played the pats a few weeks earlier, and that Tom Brady had gotten banged up... but variance happens.One game rarely proves much.. the pats would've been the MDE because of their body of work, not one game.

 

[Thunderlips]

one of the weakest champs ever IMO. No, I don't hate any of teams left, no dog in this fight or out of it or whatever and no offense to fans of these teams (some of who are about to no doubt have a hissy at this) just IMO. None of these teams exactly impressed overall during their 08 season (of those left only PIT did most consider a top SB contender, if even one at all) and will certainly not go down as a "great" team. I believed and said this back in Nov and I stand by it. it's just that kinda year.

definitely agree.Giants last year were an extremely weak champion though historically... as was 2001 pats and 2005 pittsburgh.if the nfc team wins though, we could be talking about a new level of worst champ ever.I don't think Baltimore or Pitt would be a 'bad' champ, just a nondescript one.As fans of football we just really missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity last year to say we'd seen the most dominant championship team ever.I'm getting pissed off thinking about it.

It always strikes me as a bizarre argument that in one statement you can say that if the Pats one they would have been "the most dominant championship team ever" but since they didn't, the team that beat them is "an extremely weak champion."

Excellent job with the .

 

[thayman]

one of the weakest champs ever IMO. No, I don't hate any of teams left, no dog in this fight or out of it or whatever and no offense to fans of these teams (some of who are about to no doubt have a hissy at this) just IMO. None of these teams exactly impressed overall during their 08 season (of those left only PIT did most consider a top SB contender, if even one at all) and will certainly not go down as a "great" team. I believed and said this back in Nov and I stand by it. it's just that kinda year.

definitely agree.Giants last year were an extremely weak champion though historically... as was 2001 pats and 2005 pittsburgh.if the nfc team wins though, we could be talking about a new level of worst champ ever.I don't think Baltimore or Pitt would be a 'bad' champ, just a nondescript one.As fans of football we just really missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity last year to say we'd seen the most dominant championship team ever.I'm getting pissed off thinking about it.

It always strikes me as a bizarre argument that in one statement you can say that if the Pats one they would have been "the most dominant championship team ever" but since they didn't, the team that beat them is "an extremely weak champion."

Variance is a real ##### - sometimes AA loses to QJo, but that doesn't mean it still isn't the most dominant starting hand ever.The Giants were highly beneficial of the fact they'd just played the pats a few weeks earlier, and that Tom Brady had gotten banged up... but variance happens.One game rarely proves much.. the pats would've been the MDE because of their body of work, not one game.

So the Giants benefited from playing the Pats a few weeks earlier but the Pats didn't get the same benefit??

 

[Dentist]

So the Giants benefited from playing the Pats a few weeks earlier but the Pats didn't get the same benefit??

correct. The better team doesn't gain as much there than the losing team does.in that particular case, the pats were getting tired from going all-out for 16 weeks and had to really fight to beat that Giants team IN NEW YORK. People forget that they BEAT the GIANTS IN NEW YORK.but the Giants did get confidence from being able to hang with them.Regardless of it all... the super bowl result was simply variance rearing its ugly head.

 

[anakin]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

 

[Chase Stuart]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

The Steelers schedule was not the hardest in their own division, let alone the league.

 

[Avery]

So the Giants benefited from playing the Pats a few weeks earlier but the Pats didn't get the same benefit??

correct. The better team doesn't gain as much there than the losing team does.in that particular case, the pats were getting tired from going all-out for 16 weeks and had to really fight to beat that Giants team IN NEW YORK. People forget that they BEAT the GIANTS IN NEW YORK.

but the Giants did get confidence from being able to hang with them.

Regardless of it all... the super bowl result was simply variance rearing its ugly head.

As the Giants proved yet again today, home field is not an advantage for this team in December and January.Furthermore, to credit the Giants winning an unprecedented number of games on the road and beat all the top seeds to make it to the Superbowl, and then an undefeated team to win the big game solely on statistical variance is just ridiculous.

 

[thayman]

So the Giants benefited from playing the Pats a few weeks earlier but the Pats didn't get the same benefit??

correct. The better team doesn't gain as much there than the losing team does.in that particular case, the pats were getting tired from going all-out for 16 weeks and had to really fight to beat that Giants team IN NEW YORK. People forget that they BEAT the GIANTS IN NEW YORK.but the Giants did get confidence from being able to hang with them.Regardless of it all... the super bowl result was simply variance rearing its ugly head.

Football is not poker. And the Giants were not tired from going on the road every game and winning week in and week out? Stop whining, the Pats might have been the better team all season long but the Giants were the better team that day.

 

[JuniorNB]

Will that make the other 31 teams the weakest non-champions ever, too?

 

[Dentist]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

I didn't say weak, i merely said nondescript.If i had to rank the super bowl champions this decade and included the 2008 champ as the Steelers it would go like this:1) 2004 Pats2) 2003 Pats3) 2000 Baltimore4) 2002 Tampa5) 2004 Indianapolis6) 2005 Pittsburgh7) 2008 Pittsburgh8) 2007 Giants9) 2001 PatsIf Baltimore wins this year, i'd put them in the same spot as 2008 Pitt if philly or Ari wins by sheer variance, i'd put them at the bottom all-time.. an all new low could be set

 

[Twilight]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

I didn't say weak, i merely said nondescript.If i had to rank the super bowl champions this decade and included the 2008 champ as the Steelers it would go like this:1) 2004 Pats2) 2003 Pats3) 2000 Baltimore4) 2002 Tampa5) 2005 Pittsburgh6) 2008 Pittsburgh7) 2007 Giants8) 2001 PatsIf Baltimore wins this year, i'd put them in the same spot as 2008 Pitt if philly or Ari wins by sheer variance, i'd put them at the bottom all-time.. an all new low could be set

I don't think Indy sucked bad enough to ignore them...

 

[Dentist]

Football is not poker. And the Giants were not tired from going on the road every game and winning week in and week out? Stop whining, the Pats might have been the better team all season long but the Giants were the better team that day.

Yes, the Giants played better that day and won the football game.and that's what ticks me off.. that one game determines a champion. I don't think anyone really believes the Giants had a better team and if they had to replay that game, the Pats would be at least 8 point favorites again.I'm suggesting the Super Bowl Champion isn't always the best team... and the longer I watch football the more obvious that is becoming, which detracts from the super bowl for me.the same thing is happening in other sports and that's bothering me too.

 

[r3t2]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

The Steelers schedule was not the hardest in their own division, let alone the league.

i think he's talking about the steelers having the hardest schedule at the beginning of the year, because they did. august is not december though.

 

[thayman]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

I didn't say weak, i merely said nondescript.If i had to rank the super bowl champions this decade and included the 2008 champ as the Steelers it would go like this:1) 2004 Pats2) 2003 Pats3) 2000 Baltimore4) 2002 Tampa5) 2005 Pittsburgh6) 2008 Pittsburgh7) 2007 Giants8) 2001 PatsIf Baltimore wins this year, i'd put them in the same spot as 2008 Pitt if philly or Ari wins by sheer variance, i'd put them at the bottom all-time.. an all new low could be set

It's not variance if Philly or Arizona wins.

 

[JuniorNB]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

I didn't say weak, i merely said nondescript.If i had to rank the super bowl champions this decade and included the 2008 champ as the Steelers it would go like this:1) 2004 Pats2) 2003 Pats3) 2000 Baltimore4) 2002 Tampa5) 2005 Pittsburgh6) 2008 Pittsburgh7) 2007 Giants8) 2001 PatsIf Baltimore wins this year, i'd put them in the same spot as 2008 Pitt if philly or Ari wins by sheer variance, i'd put them at the bottom all-time.. an all new low could be set

Laughable.

 

[Avery]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

I didn't say weak, i merely said nondescript.If i had to rank the super bowl champions this decade and included the 2008 champ as the Steelers it would go like this:

1) 2004 Pats

2) 2003 Pats

3) 2000 Baltimore

4) 2002 Tampa

5) 2005 Pittsburgh

6) 2008 Pittsburgh

7) 2007 Giants

8) 2001 Pats

If Baltimore wins this year, i'd put them in the same spot as 2008 Pitt

if philly or Ari wins by sheer variance, i'd put them at the bottom all-time.. an all new low could be set

You seem to imply that any lower seed team beating a higher seed team is merely a result of statistical variance.You are aware that these games are played on the field, by real life football players who take with them all the unpredictable intangibles that real life people enjoy and not as a computer simulation, right?

 

[Dentist]

I don't think Indy sucked bad enough to ignore them...

you are right - fixed.that indy team was a real surprise to me that they won that year... I think the 2004 Indy team Crushes the team that actually won it.I still feel like it was an absolute sports miracle that indy was able to take a team with the worst rushing defense in the league and just all of a sudden put it together.. really really strange.But they had a good record, and were somewhat worthy.

 

[JuniorNB]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

I didn't say weak, i merely said nondescript.If i had to rank the super bowl champions this decade and included the 2008 champ as the Steelers it would go like this:

1) 2004 Pats

2) 2003 Pats

3) 2000 Baltimore

4) 2002 Tampa

5) 2005 Pittsburgh

6) 2008 Pittsburgh

7) 2007 Giants

8) 2001 Pats

If Baltimore wins this year, i'd put them in the same spot as 2008 Pitt

if philly or Ari wins by sheer variance, i'd put them at the bottom all-time.. an all new low could be set

You seem to imply that any lower seed team beating a higher seed team is merely a result of statistical variance.You are aware that these games are played on the field, by real life football players who take with them all the unpredictable intangibles that real life people enjoy and not as a computer simulation, right?

Let me get this straight....If Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl, they would be the 6th best, but if Arizona is better than them and beats them, they would be at the bottom.

And I thought Vince Young had a low Wonderlick score.

 

[Avery]

Football is not poker. And the Giants were not tired from going on the road every game and winning week in and week out? Stop whining, the Pats might have been the better team all season long but the Giants were the better team that day.

Yes, the Giants played better that day and won the football game.and that's what ticks me off.. that one game determines a champion. I don't think anyone really believes the Giants had a better team and if they had to replay that game, the Pats would be at least 8 point favorites again.I'm suggesting the Super Bowl Champion isn't always the best team... and the longer I watch football the more obvious that is becoming, which detracts from the super bowl for me.the same thing is happening in other sports and that's bothering me too.

I think you're missing the entire point of sport and "why they play the game" and don't just vote on the champion. (Unless you're college football)

 

[Dentist]

It's not variance if Philly or Arizona wins.

o rly? Philly even making the playoffs was a variance miracle and if the NFL wasn't insane by having 4 divisions in each conference Arizona doesn't make the playoffsI know arizona won convincingly last night, but Carolina was just WAY off. Carolina would be favored by 7-8 points if they lined up next week.

 

[JuniorNB]

Football is not poker. And the Giants were not tired from going on the road every game and winning week in and week out? Stop whining, the Pats might have been the better team all season long but the Giants were the better team that day.

Yes, the Giants played better that day and won the football game.and that's what ticks me off.. that one game determines a champion. I don't think anyone really believes the Giants had a better team and if they had to replay that game, the Pats would be at least 8 point favorites again.I'm suggesting the Super Bowl Champion isn't always the best team... and the longer I watch football the more obvious that is becoming, which detracts from the super bowl for me.the same thing is happening in other sports and that's bothering me too.

I think you're missing the entire point of sport and "why they play the game" and don't just vote on the champion. (Unless you're college football)

He does bring up an interesting point though..... Perhaps the NFL should scrap the whole playoff-thing and just let the AP decide who's best.

 

[thayman]

Football is not poker. And the Giants were not tired from going on the road every game and winning week in and week out? Stop whining, the Pats might have been the better team all season long but the Giants were the better team that day.

Yes, the Giants played better that day and won the football game.and that's what ticks me off.. that one game determines a champion. I don't think anyone really believes the Giants had a better team and if they had to replay that game, the Pats would be at least 8 point favorites again.I'm suggesting the Super Bowl Champion isn't always the best team... and the longer I watch football the more obvious that is becoming, which detracts from the super bowl for me.the same thing is happening in other sports and that's bothering me too.

I see what you are saying now. I am a huge Redskin fan and I like your line of thought, since the Redskins routinely dominate free agency they can be considered the champs every year. We don't even have to play the games now!!

 

[Avery]

It's not variance if Philly or Arizona wins.

o rly? Philly even making the playoffs was a variance miracle and if the NFL wasn't insane by having 4 divisions in each conference Arizona doesn't make the playoffsI know arizona won convincingly last night, but Carolina was just WAY off. Carolina would be favored by 7-8 points if they lined up next week.

Betting, odds and point spreads do not determine who should win! It only reflects who people think will win.

 

[Dentist]

You seem to imply that any lower seed team beating a higher seed team is merely a result of statistical variance.You are aware that these games are played on the field, by real life football players who take with them all the unpredictable intangibles that real life people enjoy and not as a computer simulation, right?

You realize the games being played are managed by human referees who make game-changing decisions every game on calls and/or non-calls that are completely arbitrary?you realize that oblong ball bounces really strangely sometimes and can affect outcomes?you're implying the team that wins the game that day is always the better team, and that's just not always the case, ESPECIALLY in the close game.

 

[Die]

Maybe no great "complete" teams left, but Pittsburgh's D could go down as one of the greats depending on how the rest of the games play out.

People will still knock Pittsburgh if their route to the Lombardi is beating a #4 seed and two #6 seeds.

 

[Avery]

Football is not poker. And the Giants were not tired from going on the road every game and winning week in and week out? Stop whining, the Pats might have been the better team all season long but the Giants were the better team that day.

Yes, the Giants played better that day and won the football game.and that's what ticks me off.. that one game determines a champion. I don't think anyone really believes the Giants had a better team and if they had to replay that game, the Pats would be at least 8 point favorites again.I'm suggesting the Super Bowl Champion isn't always the best team... and the longer I watch football the more obvious that is becoming, which detracts from the super bowl for me.the same thing is happening in other sports and that's bothering me too.

I think you're missing the entire point of sport and "why they play the game" and don't just vote on the champion. (Unless you're college football)

He does bring up an interesting point though..... Perhaps the NFL should scrap the whole playoff-thing and just let the AP decide who's best.

Or even better, as Dentist implies above, just go with the point spreads each week to determine the winner and then they don't even have to play the regular season. Would save a whole lot of time and help avoid that pesky "statistical variance".

 

[Avery]

You seem to imply that any lower seed team beating a higher seed team is merely a result of statistical variance.

You are aware that these games are played on the field, by real life football players who take with them all the unpredictable intangibles that real life people enjoy and not as a computer simulation, right?

You realize the games being played are managed by human referees who make game-changing decisions every game on calls and/or non-calls that are completely arbitrary?you realize that oblong ball bounces really strangely sometimes and can affect outcomes?



you're implying the team that wins the game that day is always the better team, and that's just not always the case, ESPECIALLY in the close game.

Define "the better team"

 

[JuniorNB]

you're implying the team that wins the game that day is always the better team, and that's just not always the case, ESPECIALLY in the close game.

And do you realize that if they went back and replayed the entire playoffs every year that the Super Bowl has been played, there would be a ridiculous amount of different champions?Are you suggesting a best-of-seven series for each playoff round? What's teh point of all this? (Other than to imply that whoever your team is is probably better than any of the teams remaining this year)

 

[Mustang Man]

Maybe no great "complete" teams left, but Pittsburgh's D could go down as one of the greats depending on how the rest of the games play out.

People will still knock Pittsburgh if their route to the Lombardi is beating a #4 seed and two #6 seeds.

No way they should cause it is obvious that the Ravens are the top team this year IMO.

 

[anakin]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

The Steelers schedule was not the hardest in their own division, let alone the league.

Come on Chase I expect better than that. So let me get this straight:San Diego (division winner) and New England (11-5) <Miami (11-5) and Oakland (5-11)San Diego (division winner) and New England (11-5) <Denver (8-8) and Buffalo (7-9)San Diego (division winner) and New England (11-5) <Kansas City (2-14) and NY Jets (9-7)Not even close. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[thayman]

It's not variance if Philly or Arizona wins.

o rly? Philly even making the playoffs was a variance miracle and if the NFL wasn't insane by having 4 divisions in each conference Arizona doesn't make the playoffsI know arizona won convincingly last night, but Carolina was just WAY off. Carolina would be favored by 7-8 points if they lined up next week.

What you call statistical variance I call having a better record

 

[Dentist]

Let me get this straight....If Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl, they would be the 6th best, but if Arizona is better than them and beats them, they would be at the bottom. And I thought Vince Young had a low Wonderlick score.

What don't you understand about the way variance works in sports?last year is a perfect example. the giants were not better than the pats, but they won. the pats had already beat them in THEIR house 4-5 weeks earlier. It was proven at that time the pats were better in a tougher environment than a neutral field.The game was close and a ####### helmet strange catch contributed to the outcome. That result in no way meant the Giants were better.Arizona's body of work will not be impressive even if they win the super bowl. That's why i can assure you history will treat them terribly as they rank the champions if they were to win.. even if they were to do so convincingly you would still have the stigma of.. "only 9-7 team to ever win.. team win 3-7 outside their awful division, etc"Teams can get hot and go on runs.. the giants did it, the 2001 pats did it, the cardinals could do it... they proved they were the January champions.. definitely doesn't mean they will be considered well historically or that they will get much respect.Arizona would have to destroy the afc team and THEN go on a major run next season for me to retroactively give them credit.I was able to give the 2001 Pats more credit after the 2003/4 teams won, but still think that result was disgusting.

 

[Mighty Mice]

I agree, there is no "dominant team" in the NFL this year. In the NFC we have two 9 win teams certainly not playing like 9 win teams. In the AFC, we have a very solid 11-5 Ravens team and a very pedigreed Pittsburgh squad who won 12 games this year after playing a tough schedule.

So to get to the point of this thread, how weak will these potential SB teams be? Looking past record, take the stats of points scored and points against just for kicks. Here is the remaining teams rank on O + D.

ARI O - 3 D - 28

BAL O - 11 D - 3

PHI O - 6 D - 4

PIT O - 20 D - 1

Combined totals for the offensive/defensive teams ranks, then are:

ARI - 31

PIT - 21

BAL - 14

PHI - 10

Some thoughts:

-Pittsburgh and Baltimore do not need to score points, considering thier defensive abilities to dominate games. Therefore, the run offensive schemes that are more conservative.

-Philly is the only team in the top 10 in both areas. Being in the top 6 of each, they can potentially win shootouts or defensive battles.

-Arizona was very one sided throughout the season. Scoring was their game.

In the end, I do not see how Pittsburgh or Baltimore could be considered a "weak" champ per se. They are dominant in a facet of their game, and generate wins by exploiting their strengths. Many teams have used this formula to win titles. I also do not see Philly as a "weak" champ, regardless of the 9 wins. They were top 6 in the league in scoring O and D. Impressive balance. Arizona certainly looks different now, but the stats are not favorable.

I realize that these numbers are arbitrary and tell a partial story - they say nothing about special teams, coaching, experience, etc. But food for thought.

*edit for spelling!

 

[Slider]

The best defenses are clearly winning these games. What is this weak champion stuff? Baltimore, Pitt and Philly all have the best D's. Sorry if your team lost but maybe you should look for the variance in your D.

 

[Eminence]

Ok then, who would be a "strong" champion? Please tell me. Dolphins were weak, everyone said the Titans had a cupcake schedule, Colts lost to Jacksonville, Green Bay, Bears, Titans, and Chargers... and the Bolts themselves were 8-8.

On the NFC, Falcons maybe... Panthers got stormed by the weak Cardinals at home... Giants got stormed for a second time by their division rival.

So please tell me what way they playoffs could have turned out for it not to be a weak champion?

EDIT: Last years giants were only 10-6.

 

[Avery]

Let me get this straight....

If Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl, they would be the 6th best, but if Arizona is better than them and beats them, they would be at the bottom.

And I thought Vince Young had a low Wonderlick score.

What don't you understand about the way variance works in sports?last year is a perfect example. the giants were not better than the pats, but they won. the pats had already beat them in THEIR house 4-5 weeks earlier. It was proven at that time the pats were better in a tougher environment than a neutral field.

The game was close and a ####### helmet strange catch contributed to the outcome. That result in no way meant the Giants were better.

Arizona's body of work will not be impressive even if they win the super bowl. That's why i can assure you history will treat them terribly as they rank the champions if they were to win.. even if they were to do so convincingly you would still have the stigma of.. "only 9-7 team to ever win.. team win 3-7 outside their awful division, etc"

Teams can get hot and go on runs.. the giants did it, the 2001 pats did it, the cardinals could do it... they proved they were the January champions.. definitely doesn't mean they will be considered well historically or that they will get much respect.

Arizona would have to destroy the afc team and THEN go on a major run next season for me to retroactively give them credit.

I was able to give the 2001 Pats more credit after the 2003/4 teams won, but still think that result was disgusting.

You seem to think there is some objective measure of "better" that is a better indicator of superiority then the score of the game.Let me break it down for you. When it mattered, at the Superbowl the Giants were a better team than the Patriots. How do I know?

17-14

That's not statistical variance, it is the Giants beating up Patriots, putting pressure on Brady like he hadn't seen and Eli driving his team for a come from behind victory.

 

[JuniorNB]

Let me get this straight....

If Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl, they would be the 6th best, but if Arizona is better than them and beats them, they would be at the bottom.

And I thought Vince Young had a low Wonderlick score.

What don't you understand about the way variance works in sports?last year is a perfect example. the giants were not better than the pats, but they won. the pats had already beat them in THEIR house 4-5 weeks earlier. It was proven at that time the pats were better in a tougher environment than a neutral field.

The game was close and a ####### helmet strange catch contributed to the outcome. That result in no way meant the Giants were better.

Arizona's body of work will not be impressive even if they win the super bowl. That's why i can assure you history will treat them terribly as they rank the champions if they were to win.. even if they were to do so convincingly you would still have the stigma of.. "only 9-7 team to ever win.. team win 3-7 outside their awful division, etc"

Teams can get hot and go on runs.. the giants did it, the 2001 pats did it, the cardinals could do it... they proved they were the January champions.. definitely doesn't mean they will be considered well historically or that they will get much respect.

Arizona would have to destroy the afc team and THEN go on a major run next season for me to retroactively give them credit.

I was able to give the 2001 Pats more credit after the 2003/4 teams won, but still think that result was disgusting.

I understand 100% that in a one-game playoff, the 'best' team doesn't always win. Are you suggesting that the league spot the better team (decided by a phone call to you, of course) an appropriate lead to circumvent any fluke plays that may result in the lesser team scoring?And teh line I bolded is hilarious. As if a Super Bowl winning team gives a rat's ### what credit you give them.

 

[nxmehta]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

The Steelers schedule was not the hardest in their own division, let alone the league.

I'm assuming you're calculating strength of schedule based on this year's win-loss records rather than 2007? The Steelers certainly had the toughest projected SOS coming into this season.Do you have the list for this year SOS rankings? I can't seem to find it with a quick Google.

 

[Dentist]

you're implying the team that wins the game that day is always the better team, and that's just not always the case, ESPECIALLY in the close game.

And do you realize that if they went back and replayed the entire playoffs every year that the Super Bowl has been played, there would be a ridiculous amount of different champions?Are you suggesting a best-of-seven series for each playoff round? What's teh point of all this? (Other than to imply that whoever your team is is probably better than any of the teams remaining this year)

Yes, i agree with your first line... that is the true nature of variance.It is so rare when a team is so dominant that no one questions whether they were the best team - i love those types of teams.. ones that leave no doubts in your mind.'85 Bears - that was the best team that year, by a long shot - yes, they lost 1 game.. but overall no one questioned their superiority that year'89 49ers - fantastic team - left no doubters2003-4 Pats - great team - didn't blow out teams which hindered people's ability to call them fantastic.. but they were very good.'92-93 Cowboys - definitely the best team - no questions about it.In the years when those teams played... you could replay those playoffs SEVERAL times and would get the same results... I respect that a LOT.If it was feasible I sure would like to see best of 7 series for these things.. but it's not.Same with teh NCAA tourney - i'd rather see best of 5's amongst the 16 best teams than a 64 team bracket where 1/2 the teams are fraud.I don't have an agenda other than to let you know what we're seeing this year is a case of some serious variance and a year without dominant competition so we're highly likely to see a pretty weak champion.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

The Steelers schedule was not the hardest in their own division, let alone the league.

Come on Chase I expect better than that. So let me get this straight:San Diego (division winner) and New England (11-5) <Miami (11-5) and Oakland (5-11)San Diego (division winner) and New England (11-5) <Denver (8-8) and Buffalo (7-9)San Diego (division winner) and New England (11-5) <Kansas City (2-14) and NY Jets (9-7)Not even close. You are embarrassing yourself.

Try again.

 

[Dentist]

Ok then, who would be a "strong" champion? Please tell me. Dolphins were weak, everyone said the Titans had a cupcake schedule, Colts lost to Jacksonville, Green Bay, Bears, Titans, and Chargers... and the Bolts themselves were 8-8.On the NFC, Falcons maybe... Panthers got stormed by the weak Cardinals at home... Giants got stormed for a second time by their division rival.So please tell me what way they playoffs could have turned out for it not to be a weak champion?EDIT: Last years giants were only 10-6.

there was no way for there to be historically strong champion this season.The Titans might have had an argument if they would have ran the table because they would've gone 16-2 in games where they tried (we're throwing week 17 out)

 

[anakin]

So if the Steelers win the Super Bowl, after playing the league's hardest schedule, they are a "weak champion"? Get a life, new glasses, and a heart. Pats fans karma finally bit you..enjoy!

The Steelers schedule was not the hardest in their own division, let alone the league.

Come on Chase I expect better than that. So let me get this straight:San Diego (division winner) and New England (11-5) <Miami (11-5) and Oakland (5-11)San Diego (division winner) and New England (11-5) <Denver (8-8) and Buffalo (7-9)San Diego (division winner) and New England (11-5) <Kansas City (2-14) and NY Jets (9-7)Not even close. You are embarrassing yourself.

Try again.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Prove your point instead of silly answers.