Super Bowl predictions

I bet on the coin toss (which apparently you can do in Vegas) and won a small amount of money! Which is good because the game really depressed me…I was told Denver would be bringing an ***offense ***to New York. That was a lie.

You and me both, RET. Up until now, I’d forgotten about that.

Richard Sherman has a lot of class, too bad it is all 3rd.

He has been doing damage control to preserve his marketability for endorsements ever since he disrespected his team, the 49ers and the entire NFL with his trailer park bellowing after the NFC Championship game. He is an example of what is produced when States raise children, they posses the character and mannerisms of sewer rats.

I rooted for Seattle the last time they went to the Super Bowl, Richard Sherman was the sole reason I wanted them to lose this one. Hearing a scumbag spend an entire week “explaining” why his commentary was justified in multiple ways looking for an excuse that would “stick” proved to me that this is who and what this guy is all about.

You bet Namath would toss the coin too early? How did you know?

I’m psychic :whistle:

But hey, I figured that 50/50 odds are probably the safest bet one can make in Vegas.

My own take on the game.

The Broncos had an exceptionally bad day, while the Seahawks had a good day.

Under normal circumstances, for the Broncos to even have a chance against the Seahawks, the Broncos would have to have had an exceptionally good day, or maybe if the Seahawks had had a bad day, and the Broncos had had an exceptionally good day, the Broncos might have won.

There are a gazillion permutations, but the Broncos would have to have had an exceptionally good day NO MATTER WHAT to even have had a chance.

When it became apparent after the first play that the Broncos were having a bad day, it was a foregone conclusion to me that they would lose, and the game was going to be a big yawn.

And then after they had suffered two turnovers and no takeaways, it was completely over for me. The only question left was, “Would they score even one touchdown?” And they did . . . JUST ONE.

And Joe Namath proved once again that he is a buffoon . . . even when he’s sober (and I’m not even sure he WAS.)

1 Like

**James Carville, is that really you?

You want to talk about class? How’s this for class?
**
[ATTACH]2006[/ATTACH]

Or how about comparing the post game appearances of the respective quarterbacks on championship Sunday and how they represented their franchises?

[ATTACH]2008[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]2005[/ATTACH]

**There is a history between these two (Sherman and Crabtree) and Crabtree is not a saint. He trash talks with the best of them. He’s the guy who was dancing in front of the Packers’ tunnel to impede their entry onto the field at Lambeau when the Packers were announced. Yeah, that’s a real class act. As far as Sherman, the interview was just after the play and the kid was excited. Obviously, he can back up the talk. Look who won. This is typical behavior from a Forty-Whiners fan. Why are you so upset? Does not winning a Super Bowl in 19 years get to you that much?

Also, you might want to forego the elitist attitude of using people who live in mobile homes as a negative stereotype. A lot of good people live in them and having wheels behind their skirting doesn’t make them any less human. With my grandmother, my grandfather lived in a nice doublewide near Sanibel, Florida for decades until he passed away. It was nice, clean, and a quiet retirement community and he is a WWII Veteran.**

[quote=“Right_Wing, post:27, topic:42544”]
people who live in mobile homes as a negative stereotype
[/quote]I had that “stereotype” approach when we were looking to build a house up here in Arizona in 2000, and it came back to bite me in the butt, and I really put my foot in my mouth.

I had settled on the subdivision I wanted to look at (the only one in the area WITHOUT an HOA, and I definitely didn’t want to be in an HOA AT ALL . . . http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f8/car-washing-long-island-43430/index3.html#post641893 ).

We were driving around in the neighborhood, and I had noticed that there seemed to be a section that had a lot of “manufactured homes” (single, double, and triple wide mobile homes.) I saw two guys standing out in a driveway in front of a house, so I pulled over with the intent of asking one which section was strictly traditional framed houses.

So I walked up to one guy and said, “I don’t want any of those crappy trailers near me . . . which section would you recommend I build in?” He pointed, and said, “North of this street is all houses”.

But the other guy overheard me, and said with a frown, “I live south of here, and I live in a triple wide mobile home.”

Whooops. Red faced embarrassment and foot in mouth. Actually, some of those triple wide “manufactured homes” are very nicely appointed and reasonably priced. I just wanted more substantial insulation and thicker walls. Plus I wanted a garage connected to the house, and all the “manufactured homes” I saw had separate garages.

But holding that stereotype caused me considerable embarrassment. Take home lesson: Not all people who live in mobile homes are toothless and married to their cousin.

Getting back on topic . . . GO STEELERS (maybe next year.)

Hey . . . wasn’t Kevin Greene a linebacker coach for the Pack? He played for the Steelers for 3 years, and I remember he was good.

1 Like

That’s a good story and I agree. Your Steelers will be back. This was an off year with an extremely slow start and they still almost made the playoffs. Technically, they did considering the S.D. v. Chiefs mess. But, with an off year like that and to still almost make it says a lot about a team. It’s the same with us. We were plagued with injuries, to include Rodgers for about half the season and we still won the division. Kevin Greene didn’t play for the Packers but he was the linebackers coach for them. He is retiring after this last season to spend more time with his family. He helped Hawk a lot and really developed Clay Mathews. I will mis Greene, but I am happy for him.

[quote=“Right_Wing, post:29, topic:42544”]
Your Steelers will be back. This was an off year with an extremely slow start and they still almost made the playoffs. Technically, they did considering the S.D. v. Chiefs mess. But, with an off year like that and to still almost make it says a lot about a team. It’s the same with us. We were plagued with injuries, to include Rodgers for about half the season and we still won the division
[/quote]Coupla’ things about the Steelers, a comment on the Pack, and then a comment on your post in the Lombardi thread about teams with three different coaches winning the Superbowl.

  1. I agree 1000% with your evaluation of the Steelers run for the playoffs, though even if they had made it I think they would have gotten knocked out in the first rounds. Rothlisburger, on the offense, and Troy P. (can’t spell his last name) on the defense, are the remaining old timers, and the actual leaders on the team. There was a time that Rothlisburger, because of his size and out-of-pocket talent, could extend plays and win consistently, but defenses have increasingly become wise to that, and what once was a winning tactic is now old news and largely defeated. Troy is still good, but has lost a step with age and is not as good as he once was. That guy with the huge beard (Brent Kiesel?) is good too, but their defense, even with LaBeau, is only a shadow of what it once was.

And Rothlisberger is no longer as consistent as he once was. Some Sundays he was brilliant, others he was bad.

Drafting and rebuilding is essential now.

  1. Rodgers, though he may not have Rothlisburger’s size advantage in extending plays, is a heck of a lot more accurate than Rothlisberger. That not only makes up for the comparison, but I think puts Rodgers way ahead.

The Pack, ever since the days of Starr, Hornung, and Taylor, through Favre, and now with Rodgers, have always been an offensive power house.

But the defense, other than when they had Reggie (your avatar?) and now with Clay, is not something I would consider on the same level as their offense.

If Rodgers stays healthy next season, I think they have an excellent chance to go far in the playoffs. I will enjoy seeing them beat SF . . . Keapernack is NOT one of my favorites, though I like Harbaugh. The 9er’s were much more likable to me in the days when Ronnie Lott was making violent hits, and Roger Craig was running.

  1. On your SuperBowl/3 coaches thing, I have a question. What do you think was common to those three teams in those three instances? The talent of all those different coaches, team spirit and tradition . . . what?

I completely agree with your assessment of the Packers and Steelers. Not only is the Green Bay defense not as good as the Reggie days, but they are a shadow of what they were a few years ago in the Super Bowl against the Steelers. I don’t know why they cut Charles Woodson. They will need to pick up a safety or two in the draft as well as another linebacker and a defensive tackle. I also would like to see another defensive coordinator. If this happens and we add a tight end we will be dangerous next season and hopefully will finally beat S.F. I don’t remember the last time that happened. In fact, I just lost a nail biter to S.F. in Lambeau on Madden 25.

Yes, my avatar is a shot of Reggie’s jersey from when they retired his number. I am a Reggie White fanatic.

My brother is a Steelers fan as well as my daughter. During the Packers-Steelers Super Bowl, we were all decked out in Packers stuff, to include me in my green Reggie jersey. My daughter sported the black Big Ben jersey. I usually pull for you guys AFC wise, along with the Chiefs who my daughter is mostly pulling for now due to them being the home team and influence from her boyfriend.

Regarding your question, do you mean the three different teams, like the Steelers, Cowboys, and Packers? Or do you mean the three different eras of each team?

[quote=“Right_Wing, post:31, topic:42544”]
my avatar is a shot of Reggie’s jersey from when they retired his number. I am a Reggie White fanatic
[/quote]Yes, the “Minister of Defense” . . . very appropriate nickname.

Why Philadelphia ever let him get away, I don’t know (salary cap?)

I remember seeing a half-time event in Philadelphia (after he passed, of course) where his wife made a few remarks about him. Nice touch.

The picture of him running around the stadium hoisting the Lombardi trophy is a classic.

[quote=“Right_Wing, post:31, topic:42544”]
Regarding your question, do you mean the three different teams, like the Steelers, Cowboys, and Packers? Or do you mean the three different eras of each team?
[/quote]OK . . . I mean the three different eras of each team. IOW, why do you think, for example, the Steelers excelled under Noll, Cower, and Tomlin when they pretty much had different personnel? (Except for maybe Rothlisberger and Troy who served under both Cower and Tomlin . . . BUT weren’t Noll players.)

Given that they were different eras AND different head coaches AND, for the most part, different personnel, do you think that there was any common thread besides the Rooney family? (LeBeau, who BTW coached the secondary for the Green Bay Packers in the late 70’s, was also common to Cower and Tomlin, though I don’t think he could be considered a “common thread” between the three since he came to Pittsburgh in 1992, the year AFTER Noll retired, thus never worked under Noll.)

Which reminds me . . . old man Art, the “Chief”, with his cigar and Lombardi scowl, and an olympic qualifying boxer in 1920, presented a better “football” picture than Dan. AFAIC, Dan is pretty much a wimp, and I really lost it for him when he became a BHO appointee.

A personal story: In 1933, when Art purchased the NFL franchise for the Steelers, he paid $2,500.00 dollars for it. He lived in Pittsburgh at the time. Across the state, in the same year, 1933, in Philadelphia, my father (birth father . . . I was later adopted, but that loooong story is not pertinent to this post) purchased a heating oil business for the SAME amount, 2,500 dollars.

My father went belly up in a few years and lost the business.

Had my father spent that $2,500 dollars on buying the Pittsburgh Steelers, I and my birth siblings would be sitting in sky boxes at Heinz stadium right now! And I would NOT be the BHO ambassador to Ireland appointee.

Yes, it was very appropriate. I don’t know why he left, but I heard something about wanting to go somewhere more competitive and salary cap issues may have been involved as well. I am glad it worked out that way, though. It’s cool how Holmgren got Reggie there with the phone call.

As far as the three eras of the three teams go, Green Bay is unique in that there is a greater distance of time between all three. As you pointed out, there were left overs onto other squads from previous Super Bowl teams. With the Lombardi era, I believe it was the coaching and drive instilled to win and winning was the only thing acceptable. This, of course, fueled and complimented a powerful defense and offense.

With the Holmgren era, nobody is another Lombardi, but Holmgren was a fantastic coach who knew how to win. They had an explosive offense and a powerful defense.

I remember Pittsburgh’s defense being devasting under all three coaches and also an explosive offense. Bradshaw may have been more of a pocket passer as Big Ben could escape sacks and extend the plays, so there were some differences, but all of them had a good passing and running game with good receivers who could catch and block downfield well.

With Dallas, Landry was legendary and similar to Lombardi, so nobody could really compare, but Jimmy Johnson knew how to win and was a master of the draft. He knew how to fill voids and pick up players he needed. Dallas had a great passing game with Staubach and Aikman as well. Their receivers were talented in both eras, which also featured Tony Dorsett and Emmitt Smith for the running game who both ended up setting records and going to the Hall of Fame. Both Dallas eras also featured a crushing defense on the line and with the linebackers and quick safeties and defense backs who could cover and hit.

Of course, the nostalgia of the teams of the past, for the Packers, Cowboys, and Steelers, carrier over to present day amongst the fan base.

Since this is a thread on Super Bowl predictions, here’s mine:

I predict the Seahawks will blow Denver out of the stadium!

1 Like

[quote=“Right_Wing, post:33, topic:42544”]
As far as the three eras of the three teams go, Green Bay is unique in that there is a greater distance of time between all three. As you pointed out, there were left overs onto other squads from previous Super Bowl teams. With the Lombardi era, I believe it was the coaching and drive instilled to win and winning was the only thing acceptable. This, of course, fueled and complimented a powerful defense and offense.

With the Holmgren era, nobody is another Lombardi, but Holmgren was a fantastic coach who knew how to win. They had an explosive offense and a powerful defense.

I remember Pittsburgh’s defense being devasting under all three coaches and also an explosive offense. Bradshaw may have been more of a pocket passer as Big Ben could escape sacks and extend the plays, so there were some differences, but all of them had a good passing and running game with good receivers who could catch and block downfield well.

With Dallas, Landry was legendary and similar to Lombardi, so nobody could really compare, but Jimmy Johnson knew how to win and was a master of the draft. He knew how to fill voids and pick up players he needed. Dallas had a great passing game with Staubach and Aikman as well. Their receivers were talented in both eras, which also featured Tony Dorsett and Emmitt Smith for the running game who both ended up setting records and going to the Hall of Fame. Both Dallas eras also featured a crushing defense on the line and with the linebackers and quick safeties and defense backs who could cover and hit.
[/quote]So are you saying the “common thread” was that they all happened to have good personnel in each era?

If that’s the case then, was it just luck, or scouts or the GM’s that spanned all three era’s?

What I’m trying to get at is: was it just random luck, or was there something common to all three era’s?

I don’t believe any of it had to do with luck. Even for a team to win by getting a break such as a botched play from the other team, the winning team needed more than luck to be there in the first place. I believe coaching, talent, and team chemistry all played a part in the success of these teams.