Super Bowl LV discussion

[lastcat3]

And this, my friends, is why I never actually bet money on games. I predicted KC winning a shootout, 38-35. Instead we got a game that reminds me of my Uncle Rudy's homemade holiday horseradish: for all the hype, surprisingly bland.

Maybe. But you kind of have to admit it can be fun watching a supposedly unstoppable offense get stopped.

[Jay Z]

And this, my friends, is why I never actually bet money on games. I predicted KC winning a shootout, 38-35. Instead we got a game that reminds me of my Uncle Rudy's homemade holiday horseradish: for all the hype, surprisingly bland.

Maybe. But you kind of have to admit it can be fun watching a supposedly unstoppable offense get stopped.

With the KC o-line, it was no contest.

Brady wins the MVP, but Trent Dilfer could have won that game.

[lastcat3]

And this, my friends, is why I never actually bet money on games. I predicted KC winning a shootout, 38-35. Instead we got a game that reminds me of my Uncle Rudy's homemade holiday horseradish: for all the hype, surprisingly bland.

Maybe. But you kind of have to admit it can be fun watching a supposedly unstoppable offense get stopped.

With the KC o-line, it was no contest.

Brady wins the MVP, but Trent Dilfer could have won that game.

Bigger issue for the Chiefs than their o-line was the fact they don't have much of a running game. Tampa was in a defense that KC could have combatted if they simply could have run the ball against them. KC's leading rusher only had two 100 yard games the entire season. If KC wants to become a dynasty they need to improve their running back situation as well as sure up their defense a little more. Remember the main reason Mahomes isn't 0-2 in the Super Bowl is because he was facing Jimmy G in the first contest. They would have lost last years game too if the 9ers had a better qb.

[74_75_78_79_]

Yep! In the very week that Tom Flores gets inducted in the PFHOF, this reminds me of that very SB in which he won convincingly over a defending-Champ! And the final score was almost the same!

Yep and just out of curiosity does todays game irritate you as much as it does me sometimes? I take it from your username you were a big fan of those '70's Steelers teams who had Hall of Famers all across the board. Do you find it difficult to not judge teams of today to those teams? If teams happened to shut down those Steelers teams passing game they could just hand the ball off to their Hall of Fame running back. I understand that teams today aren't really able to afford rosters like that any longer but it does make it hard sometimes to consider todays teams to be in the same conversation as those 70's Steelers or '80's 49ers.

Well, of course! I've already opined here (key word - opine) that despite my still following it with enough enthusiasm, today's game isn't quite what it was back in the day. Parity/salary caps have had too much a heavy hand these past 20+ years. The '13 Seahawks are among the very few teams this century that can go back and hang with the back-to-back Broncos and the champs prior, perhaps beating a few of them! And, yes, a team like the '84 Dolphins would very likely beat some of these recent champs.

[SixtiesFan]

And this, my friends, is why I never actually bet money on games. I predicted KC winning a shootout, 38-35. Instead we got a game that reminds me of my Uncle Rudy's homemade holiday horseradish: for all the hype, surprisingly bland.

Maybe. But you kind of have to admit it can be fun watching a supposedly unstoppable offense get stopped.

With the KC o-line, it was no contest.

Brady wins the MVP, but Trent Dilfer could have won that game.

So what? I've observed pro football for 60 plus years and there have been a lot of championship games Trent Dilfer could have won. FWIW I believe that while QB is the most important position, the team wins rather than an individual player.

[Jay Z]

So what? I've observed pro football for 60 plus years and there have been a lot of championship games Trent Dilfer could have won. FWIW I believe that while QB is the most important position, the team wins rather than an individual player.

Prior to Dilfer though, that didn't happen. The Vikings suffered when they went from Kapp to Cuozzo. The Bears couldn't win without McMahon. The Rams couldn't win with their carousel until one of them (Ferragamo) actually played well in the playoffs.

Those teams didn't win because there was always another team that also had a good defense and a better quarterback. So they'd get beat in the playoffs.

Dilfer was at the start of the salary cap era. No one could keep enough depth to compete in all facets. So the Ravens, for 2000 only, had a defense that no one could match. Dilfer really was at the level previously disqualifying for champions, but it didn't matter because the level of the average good team had sunk. Like we had last night. The Chiefs having such a bad line due to injuries that the game was uncompetitive was unlikely in earlier eras. So some team (for a year) can have unstoppable personnel in one area that dominates the game. It's more likely in today's game than it used to be.

Brady was fine in the Super Bowl, but any number of quarterbacks could have won that game. He wasn't pressured and the defense wasn't giving up any TDs.

[SixtiesFan]

So what? I've observed pro football for 60 plus years and there have been a lot of championship games Trent Dilfer could have won. FWIW I believe that while QB is the most important position, the team wins rather than an individual player.

Prior to Dilfer though, that didn't happen. The Vikings suffered when they went from Kapp to Cuozzo. The Bears couldn't win without McMahon. The Rams couldn't win with their carousel until one of them (Ferragamo) actually played well in the playoffs.

Those teams didn't win because there was always another team that also had a good defense and a better quarterback. So they'd get beat in the playoffs.

Dilfer was at the start of the salary cap era. No one could keep enough depth to compete in all facets. So the Ravens, for 2000 only, had a defense that no one could match. Dilfer really was at the level previously disqualifying for champions, but it didn't matter because the level of the average good team had sunk. Like we had last night. The Chiefs having such a bad line due to injuries that the game was uncompetitive was unlikely in earlier eras. So some team (for a year) can have unstoppable personnel in one area that dominates the game. It's more likely in today's game than it used to be.

Brady was fine in the Super Bowl, but any number of quarterbacks could have won that game. He wasn't pressured and the defense wasn't giving up any TDs.

I repeat: So what?

[JeffreyMiller]

It never ends .. why are so many so intent on rationalizing Brady's successes? He cheated, the refs were paid off, it was the defense, he got lucky ... You don't win seven championships on luck or cheating. If Joe Montana hadn't had Jerry Rice ... if Terry Bradshaw hadn't had the Steel Curtain ... if John Unitas didn't have Weeb Ewbank ... Brady's greatness is no longer refutable (and this is coming from a Bills fan, a team that has more reason than any other to hate the guy!), but I am sure some will continue to find a way.

[JohnR]

Ten years from now when Brady wins SB LXV with the Jags, there will still be some casting aspersions. "Could he have done it without titanium hips?", they'll cry.

[RichardBak]

Ten years from now when Brady wins SB LXV with the Jags, there will still be some casting aspersions. "Could he have done it without titanium hips?", they'll cry.

lol