Super Bowl LV discussion

Jay Z
Posts: 937
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:42 pm
Location: Madison WI

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by Jay Z »

Brian wolf wrote:For TB, this SB could be tailor made for Jones/Fournette because with Gronk catching and blocking, TB can score with the receivers and eat clock and shorten the game, running the ball. They have to keep Mahomes on the sideline.
Bucs have a below average rushing offense. They had the one 20 yard run by Fournette (poor tackling by the Packers on that one) and little else.

A lot of people here and elsewhere seem ready to crown the Bucs. Kind of surprising for a defending champ to be underrated, but it appears to be so.
RRMarshall
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:12 pm

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by RRMarshall »

Anyone else notice Brady won a conference championship game despite throwing 3 INTs? But at least he is in good company as Joe Montana did also in the 1981 NFC title contest (The Catch Game). If Brees, Rodgers, and young Mahomes all end up in the HOF I beieve Brady would also be the first QB to beat three HOF QBS in one postseason. I've picked against him in all 3 postseason games so far (I thought Brees was clearly not himself coming back from injury and the Packers made a host of all horrible plays/decisions). I can't see KC making mistakes of that sort in the SB, but I've been wrong in every game so far so look out for the old man to grab one more title.
Jay Z
Posts: 937
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:42 pm
Location: Madison WI

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by Jay Z »

RRMarshall wrote:Anyone else notice Brady won a conference championship game despite throwing 3 INTs? But at least he is in good company as Joe Montana did also in the 1981 NFC title contest (The Catch Game). If Brees, Rodgers, and young Mahomes all end up in the HOF I beieve Brady would also be the first QB to beat three HOF QBS in one postseason. I've picked against him in all 3 postseason games so far (I thought Brees was clearly not himself coming back from injury and the Packers made a host of all horrible plays/decisions). I can't see KC making mistakes of that sort in the SB, but I've been wrong in every game so far so look out for the old man to grab one more title.
The Bucs were in the top 3 in the NFC. Should have beat WFT and did. Wasn't impressed by Seattle all year and not surprised they lost.

Bucs are a very good team. Clobbered the Packers in the regular season, so I definitely thought the Bucs could win, as a Packer fan.

Bucs can't score much more than the 30 they had against the Saints and Packers, so they can't win a complete shootout. Maybe they get the breaks again. In the 2000s there's been multiple times where teams strung something together for the 3-4 games needed. 2011 Giants being the ultimate example, where they just figured out how to play defense come playoff time.

But last year's Super Bowl... the Chiefs can do things no other team can do. Bucs can play solid for three quarters and it all goes poof. Or like I said, the 28-10 lead would have been lost against the Chiefs. So the Bucs need to play better to win. I do find it odd that the 14-2 defending champs are being effectively dismissed by a number of people.
Gary Najman
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:24 pm
Location: Mexico City, Mexico

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by Gary Najman »

RRMarshall wrote:Anyone else notice Brady won a conference championship game despite throwing 3 INTs? But at least he is in good company as Joe Montana did also in the 1981 NFC title contest (The Catch Game). If Brees, Rodgers, and young Mahomes all end up in the HOF I beieve Brady would also be the first QB to beat three HOF QBS in one postseason. I've picked against him in all 3 postseason games so far (I thought Brees was clearly not himself coming back from injury and the Packers made a host of all horrible plays/decisions). I can't see KC making mistakes of that sort in the SB, but I've been wrong in every game so far so look out for the old man to grab one more title.
Montana threw two interceptions to Everson Walls and one to Randy White, but beat Walls in The Catch.
lastcat3
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:47 pm

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by lastcat3 »

Jay Z wrote: I do find it odd that the 14-2 defending champs are being effectively dismissed by a number of people.
I think it is mainly because the Chiefs aren't your traditional dominant back to back Super Bowl team. You could see them easily getting beaten if the other team got just a couple breaks or if one of their three stars had a bad game.

The Chiefs are a very special team in the post 2005/10 era where most teams are just a few steps away from going 8-8 on either side. But most people on this board are more traditional fans where there were some truly dominant teams in the league. The Chiefs quite literally would probably get destroyed against pretty much any other back to back Super Bowl champion.
Jay Z
Posts: 937
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:42 pm
Location: Madison WI

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by Jay Z »

lastcat3 wrote:
Jay Z wrote: I do find it odd that the 14-2 defending champs are being effectively dismissed by a number of people.
I think it is mainly because the Chiefs aren't your traditional dominant back to back Super Bowl team. You could see them easily getting beaten if the other team got just a couple breaks or if one of their three stars had a bad game.

The Chiefs are a very special team in the post 2005/10 era where most teams are just a few steps away from going 8-8 on either side. But most people on this board are more traditional fans where there were some truly dominant teams in the league. The Chiefs quite literally would probably get destroyed against pretty much any other back to back Super Bowl champion.
1979-80 is a ways back now, which is why I mentioned those Steeler teams. Particularly the Super Bowl against the Rams. Got outrushed, lost the turnover battle, then boom boom boom, beat the spread anyway.

The odds are different when your team can push the reset button and the other team can't. Case in point from last Super Bowl is when the 49ers are still up, Chiefs not doing much, 49ers have scripted it out exactly how they want. Then Mahomes drops back about 15 yards, in effectively unsackable position, and throws up a punt that Hill runs under, catches wide open for a 40 yard game. This not only plays to explosiveness but to the fact that this was a planned, scripted play the Chiefs had that they had held back for just such an occasion.

Even the analytics sites I think have a difficult time dealing with this. There has been talk, scuttlebutt, that the Chiefs have held their foot off the gas at times to keep things from getting on film, so they have them available. I think in today's NFL it is more strategic like that, you can't just smash someone into oblivion like the 1973 Dolphins. Hell, even at that time Landry would try to trick the opposition. It worked sometimes, sometimes he out tricked himself.

Summary is that your odds are worse when the other team can roll up 21 or 28 points in a quarter. Which the Chiefs can do. So you can't really talk about "bad game" until the clock hits 0:00 in the 4th quarter. From what I have seen, the Bucs need to play better to win. Not just Brady rolling his helmet onto the field and the game is over against the defending champs.
lastcat3
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:47 pm

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by lastcat3 »

Jay Z wrote:
lastcat3 wrote:
Jay Z wrote: I do find it odd that the 14-2 defending champs are being effectively dismissed by a number of people.
I think it is mainly because the Chiefs aren't your traditional dominant back to back Super Bowl team. You could see them easily getting beaten if the other team got just a couple breaks or if one of their three stars had a bad game.

The Chiefs are a very special team in the post 2005/10 era where most teams are just a few steps away from going 8-8 on either side. But most people on this board are more traditional fans where there were some truly dominant teams in the league. The Chiefs quite literally would probably get destroyed against pretty much any other back to back Super Bowl champion.
1979-80 is a ways back now, which is why I mentioned those Steeler teams. Particularly the Super Bowl against the Rams. Got outrushed, lost the turnover battle, then boom boom boom, beat the spread anyway.

The odds are different when your team can push the reset button and the other team can't. Case in point from last Super Bowl is when the 49ers are still up, Chiefs not doing much, 49ers have scripted it out exactly how they want. Then Mahomes drops back about 15 yards, in effectively unsackable position, and throws up a punt that Hill runs under, catches wide open for a 40 yard game. This not only plays to explosiveness but to the fact that this was a planned, scripted play the Chiefs had that they had held back for just such an occasion.

Even the analytics sites I think have a difficult time dealing with this. There has been talk, scuttlebutt, that the Chiefs have held their foot off the gas at times to keep things from getting on film, so they have them available. I think in today's NFL it is more strategic like that, you can't just smash someone into oblivion like the 1973 Dolphins. Hell, even at that time Landry would try to trick the opposition. It worked sometimes, sometimes he out tricked himself.

Summary is that your odds are worse when the other team can roll up 21 or 28 points in a quarter. Which the Chiefs can do. So you can't really talk about "bad game" until the clock hits 0:00 in the 4th quarter. From what I have seen, the Bucs need to play better to win. Not just Brady rolling his helmet onto the field and the game is over against the defending champs.
You know what would happen if this Chiefs team tried to go up against the '73 Dolphins. Mahomes would hardly ever get the ball and when he did get it the talent the Dolphins did have on defense would do a much better job of slowing him down than any defense in the league currently. This current Chiefs team is probably somewhere inbetween the 90's Bills and the '80's Broncos. Mahomes is pretty similar to Elway but the Chiefs do have a couple more offensive weapons than those '80's Broncos teams had. They at the same time don't have close to the talent that the '90's Bills possessed. Neither the '80's Broncos or the '90's Bills were close to matching up to the better teams those decades could muster. Sure the league may be more strategic now but the teams simply aren't as good as the better teams in the league back in the day. The question raised was why people on this board seem to be dismissing the Chiefs or not taking them seriously as a potential back to back Super Bowl champ and I think that is the answer. Because people on this board are fans of the history of the game and teams were simply better in the past than they are now.
Jay Z
Posts: 937
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:42 pm
Location: Madison WI

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by Jay Z »

lastcat3 wrote:You know what would happen if this Chiefs team tried to go up against the '73 Dolphins. Mahomes would hardly ever get the ball and when he did get it the talent the Dolphins did have on defense would do a much better job of slowing him down than any defense in the league currently. This current Chiefs team is probably somewhere inbetween the 90's Bills and the '80's Broncos. Mahomes is pretty similar to Elway but the Chiefs do have a couple more offensive weapons than those '80's Broncos teams had. They at the same time don't have close to the talent that the '90's Bills possessed. Neither the '80's Broncos or the '90's Bills were close to matching up to the better teams those decades could muster. Sure the league may be more strategic now but the teams simply aren't as good as the better teams in the league back in the day. The question raised was why people on this board seem to be dismissing the Chiefs or not taking them seriously as a potential back to back Super Bowl champ and I think that is the answer. Because people on this board are fans of the history of the game and teams were simply better in the past than they are now.
Even back in the 1960s and 1970s, there were tactical issues. Very hard to pass on the Packers. Dolphins as well. You could run on the Dolphins some, more than you could on the Steelers. You couldn't run it as well as they could, and you couldn't pass on them, so you couldn't come back. But in 1974, the Dolphins had a couple of DB injuries, and Stabler tore them up. Even with a Dolphins team that could still run the ball quite well against a pathetic Raiders front 7.

Yes, there is randomness in football, but us historical fans and analysts do better coming at it from a wargaming background than baseball. When a team has a tactical advantage the other team can't match, the odds of an upset decrease more than if you just treat each play as a roll of the dice.
lastcat3
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:47 pm

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by lastcat3 »

Jay Z wrote:
lastcat3 wrote:You know what would happen if this Chiefs team tried to go up against the '73 Dolphins. Mahomes would hardly ever get the ball and when he did get it the talent the Dolphins did have on defense would do a much better job of slowing him down than any defense in the league currently. This current Chiefs team is probably somewhere inbetween the 90's Bills and the '80's Broncos. Mahomes is pretty similar to Elway but the Chiefs do have a couple more offensive weapons than those '80's Broncos teams had. They at the same time don't have close to the talent that the '90's Bills possessed. Neither the '80's Broncos or the '90's Bills were close to matching up to the better teams those decades could muster. Sure the league may be more strategic now but the teams simply aren't as good as the better teams in the league back in the day. The question raised was why people on this board seem to be dismissing the Chiefs or not taking them seriously as a potential back to back Super Bowl champ and I think that is the answer. Because people on this board are fans of the history of the game and teams were simply better in the past than they are now.
Even back in the 1960s and 1970s, there were tactical issues. Very hard to pass on the Packers. Dolphins as well. You could run on the Dolphins some, more than you could on the Steelers. You couldn't run it as well as they could, and you couldn't pass on them, so you couldn't come back. But in 1974, the Dolphins had a couple of DB injuries, and Stabler tore them up. Even with a Dolphins team that could still run the ball quite well against a pathetic Raiders front 7.

Yes, there is randomness in football, but us historical fans and analysts do better coming at it from a wargaming background than baseball. When a team has a tactical advantage the other team can't match, the odds of an upset decrease more than if you just treat each play as a roll of the dice.
And if either Hill or Kelce get injured than the Chiefs probably turn into a 9-7 type team. It's just two different ways of looking at the game. For me I just think the game was better and more interesting to watch when you had true dynasties like the '60's Packers, '70's Steelers, '80's 49ers, and '90's Cowboys. Teams that were so good that they didn't have to bother with out strategizing you. They would just line up and beat you and opposing teams couldn't do anything about it. In my opinion I think the reason the NFL became more about strategy is because they couldn't build dynasties like that anylonger......they simply weren't able to afford those kinds of rosters. I realize for some people it has made playoff football more interesting because back then you could pretty much write teams in to the conference championship game or the Super Bowl.....something you can no longer do. But for me who enjoyed seeing greatness in particular teams I view the league as simply being a little inferior to the way it used to be.
Brian wolf
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am

Re: Super Bowl LV discussion

Post by Brian wolf »

I believe the Chiefs should and will win the SB but I would not be surprised at all, if the powers that be decide an older, proven superstar QB takes the game away from the young, new face of the league ... would love to see the young QB defend his championship but its the teams that have to decide it.

Hopefully, a SB win for TB will make more people notice the excellence of Lavonte David. Can a win help Suh or Evans get a future HOF/HOVG push ?

Mahomes, Kelce, Hill and Mathieu can benefit as well with another SB win. Bell, like McCoy last year, and Fournette for TB, can win championships and restart their careers for the better ...
Post Reply