Super Bowl XXXIX discussion thread

[The Man in Blak 0]

The Eagles have had an annoying habit of losing to lesser teams over the last three years, so I think most people have been rightfully conditioned to believe that Minnesota and Atlanta had a legitimate shot.

 

But they're not playing a lesser team in the Super Bowl. They're playing the Patriots, who thumped them to the tune of 31-10 in Philly last season (2003) and, while time has certainly passed and the Eagles defense is better, the Patriots are a whole 'nother beast this year.

 

Given Philly's history, the NFC's notoriety this year, New England's performance in the last two games, and New England's performance in the last two Super Bowls, I don't think the predictions are really all that wild.

[The Man in Blak 0]

It's just unfair "blowout" predictions that piss me off from other people that don't know what they're talking about.

 

Do they not know what they're talking about because they're ignorant? Or just because they disagree with you?

[The Man in Blak 0]

And while you're furiously typing up your response (tap tap tap tap), how exactly are the Eagles DUE to win a Super Bowl? What about the Vikings, who have lost all four Super Bowls that they've played in? What about the Saints, who have never even been to a Super Bowl? Framing the Eagles as though they're a success-starved team would be a little inaccurate, in my opinion.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

New England Patriots: PF in playoffs(Since 2002)

41 vs Pittsburgh

20 vs Indianapolis

32 vs Carolina(Super Bowl)

24 vs Indianapolis

17 vs Tennessee

 

Philadelphia Eagles: PF in playoffs(Since 2002)

27 vs Atlanta(NFC Championship)

27 vs Minnesota

3 vs Carolina(NFC Championship)

20 vs Green Bay

10 vs Tampa Bay(NFC Championship)

20 vs Atlanta

 

While neither team really "blows" teams out, I think the Patriots do enough to win while also having the type of team that can go in a shoot out. Philadelphia scored 30+ points 6 times during the regular season. New England scored 30+ points only 5 times this season but topped the 40 mark twice.

[therealworldschampion 0]

And while you're furiously typing up your response (tap tap tap tap), how exactly are the Eagles DUE to win a Super Bowl? What about the Vikings, who have lost all four Super Bowls that they've played in? What about the Saints, who have never even been to a Super Bowl? Framing the Eagles as though they're a success-starved team would be a little inaccurate, in my opinion.

 

Oh come on, the city's gone nearly 22 years now without a championship, we need one dammit! Of all the cities with 4 major sports teams, Philadelphia has gone the longest without a title. Hell I'm 21 now and none of my teams (Eagles, Phils, Sixers, Flyers) have ever won a championship.

 

And the Saints being anywhere near the Super Bowl would be so wrong on so many levels.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

I think Cleveland has suffered more than Philli.

[The Czech Republic 0]

But at least Cleveland's suffering lent itself to the heartwarming comedy classic Major League. Philadelphia is just a big city of disgruntledness.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

I think it's kind of dumb to pick a team because of "destiny." I have the Pats winning this one in a game that's not close.

 

TO needs to keep his ass on the bench. His pride is going to hurt him if he lets it. Sure he might be able to walk and maybe jog or run, but can he outrun a defense or stop on a dime at full speed? He's going to do long term damage to his body and never be the same again if he plays in this game.

 

The thin about the Pats that I've watched in the playoffs is the fact that they put teams AWAY. They recover a fumble from the Steelers and then score a TD on the next play. They have the fumble overturned and then score a TD on the next play. They step up and make plays when they need them. I didn't see the Eagles do that. They let the Vikings hang around last weekend. They let the Falcons hang around yesterday. The Pats can lead a game from whistle to whistle and they deliver knockout punches when they're supposed to.

 

I think this Super Bowl will be like the Ravens/Giants Superbowl a few years ago with the Pats playing the role of the Ravens.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

Major League was just on too.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

For the comparisons between Super Bowl XXXII and XXXIX. The thing about then, was that Denver had a better running game than Green Bay did. Terrell Davis was able to run up and down the field all day against the Packers, and that's why Denver won. A lot of it had to do with the Denver offensive line which kept the Green Bay defense in check all game. That's why they won. It had nothing to do with Denver being due or bullshit like that. They won because they matched up well against the Packers and they outplayed them.

 

It won't happen here barring some sort of breakdown or serious injury on the Patriots. Every single unit on New England, save the secondary which is still very good and the punter, is better than their Philadelphia counterparts, including the coach. And the secondary is more than capable of taking on Philly's weakpoint which is their WRs. TO is not going to be an issue. He might get on the field as a decoy or something to say he played in the Super Bowl, but he isn't doing anything significant if he even gets cleared. Usually, you can say if the game goes this way Underdog Team A can beat Dominant Team B. If Oakland turned it into a shoot-out two years ago, they had a shot (ignore the oddsmakers, Tampa was clearly the better team heading into that game). But on paper, there is no way that Philadelphia can win this. It is like XXIX, where whatever San Deigo could do, San Fran could do better.

 

Correction, there is one way the Eagles can win.

 

Andy Reid: All right, Donovan, I'm not gonna lie to you.  There's a good chance you can beat the Patriots.  But you gotta visualize how you're gonna win, okay?

Donovan McNabb: Gotcha.

[dreams on about his victory]

Announcer: A congenital heart defect has apparently felled Brady moments before he could step onto the field.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

Philadelphia isn't "due" a championship simply because the city hasn't won a title of any sort since 1983. Philadelphia had many chances since then and has wasted them. Destiny isn't real and it doesn't knock on a city's doorstep because it's deprived of championships.

 

The defense does deserve credit here but New England has proven time and time again to be the better team. Pittsburgh exposed your Eagles and last night we witnessed the Patriots shred them. Is the blowout sentiment justified? Maybe not since the Eagles "proved" themselves but history supports the "blowout" theory. It took McNabb three years of falling short of making it to the dance, and now he's going to just waltz away with it? Not a chance. This is old hat for the Patriots, Philadelphia's personal isn't used to this exposure. They will be tourists. New England is a team with a bigger purpose then Philadelphia. It's a dynasty here with the New England Patriots. They have beaten a NFC West and South team; it's the East's turn to fall to the Patriots.

 

I'm not a patriots fan and I hate the concept of dynasties but it's clear Belichick is already a legendary coach and Tom Brady; while the media blows Vick, McNabb and Manning...Is the real deal. His record proves you don't go against Tom Brady in the postseason. 8-0. What's McNabb's record? 5-4? McNabb obviously knows how it feels to lose in the postseason, Brady's impervious to losing at this stage.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

That and the Patriots have gone 28-4 over the past 2 regular seasons and 33-4 overall(including playoffs). That's absolutely, pure dominance in terms of winning. They've lost to Pittsburgh(annihilated 41-27 in re-match) and Miami(lost by 1 point and they beat them 24-10 earlier in the season) this year and Buffalo(annihilated them 31-0 in a re-match) and Washington(by only 3 points).

[Damaramu 0]

Well The Panthers were pretty much given no chance against The Pats either and made it a great game.

And don't say that last years Panthers was better than this years Eagles team b/c that BS.

The Eagles are a lot better than they're given credit for and it will be a good game.

If anything Philly's D is what can keep this game close and keep the thing from getting out of hand. I doubt someone is just going to show up and put up 50 on that kind of defense.

[KingPK 0]

For the Pats fans here, how truly crazy will it get up there in the next 2 weeks?

Not as nuts as Philly, but the thought of the Patriots, the former laughingstock of the NFL becoming a bona-fide dynasty in the salary cap era is the main thing we're excited about.

 

We might be getting a tad bit spoiled here. Oh well, there's always the Celtics to send us back to Earth. And the Bru........oh yeah.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Although funny enough, that's what many were saying about the Steelers(close game, defense will keep them close, etc.) and the Pats put up 41 on them.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

For the Pats fans here, how truly crazy will it get up there in the next 2 weeks?

Not as nuts as Philly, but the thought of the Patriots, the former laughingstock of the NFL becoming a bona-fide dynasty in the salary cap era is the main thing we're excited about.

 

We might be getting a tad bit spoiled here. Oh well, there's always the Celtics to send us back to Earth.

I bet the undefeated BC Eagles could give the Celts a good fight at this point.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

I see McNabb throwing at LEAST 2 picks against the Patriots and the Patriots scoring at leats 10 points from turnovers. Remember this is the team that had a player make contact with Edgerrin James, keep him off the ground will making him run backwards and hold him up long enough for another teammate to come over and punish him. You're going to see at least one Philly fumble in this game too.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

And while you're furiously typing up your response (tap tap tap tap), how exactly are the Eagles DUE to win a Super Bowl? What about the Vikings, who have lost all four Super Bowls that they've played in? What about the Saints, who have never even been to a Super Bowl? Framing the Eagles as though they're a success-starved team would be a little inaccurate, in my opinion.

 

Oh come on, the city's gone nearly 22 years now without a championship, we need one dammit! Of all the cities with 4 major sports teams, Philadelphia has gone the longest without a title. Hell I'm 21 now and none of my teams (Eagles, Phils, Sixers, Flyers) have ever won a championship.

 

And the Saints being anywhere near the Super Bowl would be so wrong on so many levels.

No love for the Philadelphia Wings???

[The Czech Republic 0]

I think this Super Bowl will be like the Ravens/Giants Superbowl a few years ago with the Pats playing the role of the Ravens.

god help me

[Art Sandusky 0]

Sadly, he's probably right. Eww.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Well The Panthers were pretty much given no chance against The Pats either and made it a great game.

And don't say that last years Panthers was better than this years Eagles team b/c that BS.

 

I would argue that they were, but that's besides the point. The real issue is that this years Pats team is much better than last years version which was already dominant.

[KingPK 0]

Actually, a lot of the talk I heard leading up to that game was "The Panthers have a pretty good chance of doing what the Pats did to the Rams two years ago."

 

Delhomme did have a monster game, and that (coupled with injuries to the Pats' secondary during the game, which facilitated the guys they got this year AND making Troy Brown a two-way player) kept the Panthers in it.

[NoCalMike 0]

The Patriots just made the league's #1 rated defense their bitches. Why is it unfair to believe they can handle Eagles Defense similarly?

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Andy Reid: All right, Donovan, I'm not gonna lie to you.  There's a good chance you can beat the Patriots.  But you gotta visualize how you're gonna win, okay?

Donovan McNabb: Gotcha.

[dreams on about his victory]

Announcer: A congenital heart defect has apparently felled Belichick moments before he could step onto the field.

Edited for accuracy.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

The Eagles were crying and stuff after they won. Do they not realize that there is still one game left? Talk about a major letdown.

 

They are going to be beaten, and I don't see them making much of a game out of it. I want them to win, I hope they do, but all signs point to a spanking. The only they have going for them is that the Pats have not played them this year, and we all know that Belichick doesn't do too well on his first time with an opposing QB. Of course, he has two weeks to prepare, so it shouldn't be that bad.

 

I pick NE in a blowout due to the fact that they are more dominating then they've EVER been.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Jesus people. I go away for a full day and Tom needs to come in and babysit? For shame. This is my warning: keep it civil. If not, I WILL start suspending posters, and I don't give a flying fuck who started it.

[tominator89 0]

I hope both teams are enjoying their time before the Superbowl, even though I feel it can't come soon enough. All the questions, debates, arguements that will come up from now until Feb. 6th are meaningless when the game actually starts. I'm an Eagles fan, so I want them to win. If they lose, I won't be shocked; the Patriots are a great team. But, there are so many variable to take into account. What if Brady or McNabb gets injured on their first series and are out of the game due to a serious injury? Sure, it's the Superbowl and people will do anything to win it, but anything can happen. I'm just glad that the two teams made it that did. If the Eagles don't win, I feel confident that they'll at least make the game worth watching. Sometimes it's important to remember that the NFL is in the entertainment industry. This is supposed to be fun, right?

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

There's really nothing they can talk about as far as Super Bowl hype this year. The next couple of weeks will be devoted to convincing people that this game will be compelling. I can't think of anything about this Super Bowl that interests me right now because I'm so convinced of the outcome.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I wouldn't be too convinced. I have a feeling this will be one of those games where the losing side will always be in the game, but never do something to quite get the game to go in their favor. Blowouts are entertaining at times because you get to see the team doing the blow out score all over the field and embarass the other team, but these are the worst kinds of games because the whole time you're expecting something crazy or exciting to happen, and it never does. This happened several times during the season (especially when watching the Packers play), the NFC Championship game and the Vikings-Packers game in particular.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am looking to avoid all the lead up to the Superbowl, as I have a big paranoid delusion that there is going to be WAAAY to much coverage given to the "WILL TO PLAY OR NOT" factor, which really, doesn't matter whatsoever anyway.