Slayer Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Fun fact: Last time a home team got shut out in the playoffs was the 1979 NFC title game, where the surprising LA Rams upset the equally surprising Tampa Bay Bucs 9-0.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Ah so that was what my buddy was inferring to. He told me this was the first shutout in the playoffs since 1979. I was confounded as I remembered shutouts after said year. Now it's all clear to me.
Slayer Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 The previous shutout in the playoffs was 2002: Jets 41, Colts 0
nl5xsk1 Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 After watching Eli shit the bed yesterday, I had to wonder: Will ESPN acknowledge the fact that they spent weeks hyping up the potential Manning/Manning Super Bowl?
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 No. They will just shift the focus to the next most attractive matchup, and will continue to do so as the matchups are eliminated every weekend up to the Super Bowl when they are left with the least attractive matchup (Perhaps Pittsburgh vs Washington or something)
Slayer Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Pittsburgh vs. Washington would have a good buildup with the history involved, not to mention it would be Gibbs fifth SB appearance. Least attractive match would be Seattle vs. anyone except Denver, since Seattle is a meh team history wise and don't have much going for them today save Shaun Alexander. With Denver, I suppose you could play up the old AFC West rivalry, despite the fact Seattle was always the odd man out as far as intradivision hated.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I was speaking strictly in terms of what the teams has done this year. They will obviously find something to build Pittsburgh/Washington on, but knowing ESPN, it will be more like "See the Battle of #6 Seeds!" or something equally stupid. Seattle, however, is hyped as the surefire NFC winner, so ESPN will likely want Seattle, now that the Manning matchup isn't happening.
Slayer Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Seattle has nothing going for them from a hype standpoint. As always, they're a "they're there" team. Here's how I'd rate the potential SB candidates from a hype-ability standpoint: NE - Obvious Indy - Also obvious Denver - Plummer makes SB; Shanahan shows he can make the SB without Horseface. Steelers - Cowher's second SB (and it only took him a decade to get back!) Carolina - second SB in three years Washington - Gibbs' fifth SB appearance, possible fourth title Chicago - ...there's always history to fall back on Seattle - see Chicago, minus the history part. If you're going for a "fun to watch today" perspective, well... you're pretty much stuck with Indy or NE, since most of the NFC teams are of the "win ugly" variety. So... always look on the bright side! Unless your name is Seattle.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I'll chalk that up to Minnesota bias. You cannot say that the Bears could "just fall back on history"... nevermind that they had a defense that made every team throw fits... Seattle also has one of the best offenses. To say they're just there is absurd.
Damaramu Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I can't really bring myself to care about any of these teams in the NFC. In the AFC I'm still pulling for the Colts but damn I don't know about the NFC. I guess I'll pull the "root for a friends team" card when all else fails. Let's see I only have one friend that actually watches the NFL(all others think it sucks) and he likes Minnesota(and i hate them anyway). Well Porter I guess I'll care about your team in the NFC.....they do have a couple of my OU boys anyway(even though one is injured).
Slayer Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 You cannot say that the Bears could "just fall back on history"... nevermind that they had a defense that made every team throw fits... They also had an offense that made every Bears fan throw fits, just a step above the 2001 Bears in offensive competency. Seattle also has one of the best offenses. To say they're just there is absurd. Beyond Alexander (a deserving MVP) carrying the offense, I can't say I've seen remarkable things about them. They beat up a god-awful division and were several close calls away from being 10-6 instead of 13-3 (pointing to the Giants, Titans and first 49ers games in particular)
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I know the Chicago offense is vastly underwhelming, but that's not the point. The point is ESPN would focus on the defense. They will be hyping the shit out of the Bears defense. The offense would be an after thought. Let's say it ended up being Bears vs Colts, the ESPN would make it "Offense vs Defense" kind of thing. Bears vs Steelers? "Run vs Run" or "Defense vs Defense". Bears vs Patriots? "1986 All over Again". Bears vs Denver?... ok that is probably an ugly matchup. Seattle, while also admittedly underwhelming, the ESPN will still tout them as the best offense NFC has to offer. The argument is not what makes for the best matchup or what makes for the best matchup for ESPN to shill. Its what ESPN WILL shill out of any matchup. There's something to hype for about the Panthers, Bears, Seahawks and even the Redskins. The AFC will get the lion's share of the hype though, that part I admit.
Slayer Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Bears vs Denver? Bears-Broncos. The Alliteration Bowl! Let's look at past Alliteration Bowls Patriots-Panthers: Great Packers-Patriots: Not so good Raiders-Redskins: Bad Colts-Cowboys: Ugly Well... it is an upward trend, so it might not be that bad.
sfaJack Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Beyond Alexander (a deserving MVP) carrying the offense, I can't say I've seen remarkable things about them. They beat up a god-awful division and were several close calls away from being 10-6 instead of 13-3 (pointing to the Giants, Titans and first 49ers games in particular) Don't forget the Cowboys literally giving the game away to them.
Slayer Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Yeah, but Dallas excelled in giving away games this year, so that one is on them
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) If the Bears doesn't make it to the Super Bowl, I think the best Super Bowl matchup is either Panthers/Patriots II or Panthers/Colts. Not to say the Bears would make an excellent Super Bowl team, that offense is embarrassing as a Chicago fan. Edited January 9, 2006 by Porter
Failed Bridge Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I'm hoping for a Patriots/Bears match-up. Its payback time for that damned Super Bowl Shuffle.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I'm hoping for a Patriots/Bears match-up. Its payback time for that damned Super Bowl Shuffle. Yeah, best get it when the Bears aren't the #2 offense in the NFC like that year.
Slayer Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 A couple weeks ago I predicted that neither Seattle nor Chicago would go to the SB and I stand by that.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. Panthers looked damn good yesterday and they might start a hot run like they did two years ago.
Slayer Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 One matchup I could go for is NE/Washington... Gibbs vs. Belichick EDIT: Of course, the downside to this is that there would no doubt be another resurrection of the whole "Is the Redskins name appropriate?" discussion
Your Paragon of Virtue Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I'm really hoping for the Panthers to make it, they're definitely the most exciting team to watch in the NFC. I can easily see them beating the Bears, though they were demolished last time out. The Redskins are going to be destroyed this week, Seattle's offense won't give away the game like the Bucs did. Not to mention the Redskins are awful. Indy-NE in the AFC, and I have a sickening feeling that NE will win that matchup AGAIN.
Bored Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) Since the Wild Card round was added no NFC Wild Card team has gone to the Super Bowl. The '75 Cowboys went to Super Bowl X as a Wild Card but only had to win two games to do so. Edit: Further looking into it, there hasn't been a Wild Card team to reach the NFC title game since the '89 Rams. So history is definently against the Redskins and Panthers this week. One matchup I could go for is NE/Washington... Gibbs vs. Belichick EDIT: Of course, the downside to this is that there would no doubt be another resurrection of the whole "Is the Redskins name appropriate?" discussion So the Patriots will give the Redskins smallpox infected blankets? Edited January 9, 2006 by Bored
Gert T Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I've probably said it a few times, and I know I've said it in real life when I'm not thinking. But, nonetheless, it's sort of funny to take a step back and look at those type of comments, which run rampant on team-specific boards. I read a board on stillers.com, and there are plenty of Bengals, Browns, Ravens, etc. fans on there that, after they lose, say stuff like "Good luck next week!" I mean, what the fuck? Good luck finding a seat at the bar? Good luck trying to get a BJ during the game? Fine, I hope the team you root for gets their ass kicked against Indy. There I cleared it up for you. TJ doesn't surprise me, he's said stuff about how we were the better team after every loss. The conspiracy stuff way off base though.
MrRant Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Seattle also has one of the best offenses. To say they're just there is absurd. Beyond Alexander (a deserving MVP) carrying the offense, I can't say I've seen remarkable things about them. They beat up a god-awful division and were several close calls away from being 10-6 instead of 13-3 (pointing to the Giants, Titans and first 49ers games in particular) The Seahawks had only 192 third-down snaps in the regular season, the second-fewest in the NFL, behind only Indianapolis. Seattle led the league in scoring drives of 80 yards or more, a testimony to the patience and consistent playmaking skills of Pro Bowl quarterback Matt Hasselbeck, but also to his ability to keep the Seahawks out of precarious situations. That is, in part, why the Seahawks had just 17 turnovers, second fewest in the league. The Seahawks, who averaged 6.25 yards on first down, just aren't in very many disadvantageous down-and-distance situations. TEAM OFFENSE TM PER GAME AVERAGE Total Yards WAS 330.6 SEA 369.7 Yards Passing WAS 194.1 SEA 216.1 Yards Rushing WAS 136.4 SEA 153.6 TEAM DFFENSE TM PER GAME AVERAGE Yards Allowed WAS 297.9 SEA 316.8 Pass Yds Allowed WAS 192.6 SEA 222.4 Rush Yds Allowed WAS 105.4 SEA 94.4 That was all from ESPN but if you have watched the Seahawks play all season you can tell that they don't make very many mistakes, have a good enough defense and the offense can hang with anyone. Hasselbeck also is a pro bowl QB with 3459 yds, 24 TDs 9 INTs and a 98.2 QB rating. Playing the 49ers and Cards twice this year certainly helped but it wasn't all they did. I'm of the mind that you win against the good teams and more or less dominate the bad which they have done minus the two close ones against SF and the Titans.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now