Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The win total against winning teams of the last 5 Superbowl winners

Westbrook36

By Westbrook36
in Around the NFL

Recommended Posts

Westbrook36

Westbrook36

Posted
Posted

2008 Pittsburgh Steelers: (4) Balt x2, NE, Dal

2007 NY Giants: (2) NYJ, Atl

2006 Indianapolis Colts: (3) Phi, NE, NYG

2005 Pittsburgh Steelers: (4) SD, Cin, Chi, Min

2004 New England Patriots: (7) Pitt, Buff x2, Seattle, NYJ x2, Balt)

An average of 4 wins against winning teams per year for the last 5 Superbowl winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tr1

tr1

Posted
Posted
2008 Pittsburgh Steelers: (4) Balt x2, NE, Dal

2007 NY Giants: (2) NYJ, Atl

2006 Indianapolis Colts: (3) Phi, NE, NYG

2005 New England Patriots: (4) Pitt, Tampa Bay, Miami x2

2004 New England Patriots: (7) Pitt, Buff x2, Seattle, NYJ x2, Balt)

An average of 4 wins against winning teams per year for the last 5 Superbowl winners.

The Giants were a fluke, right? I think everyone will agree.

So, basically, this proves my point, if you have few wins against winning teams, your chances of winning the SB aren't great...not nill, but not great.

Thanks, WB.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hail2skins

hail2skins

Posted
Posted

The 2005 Steelers won the SB, not the 2005 Pats. Four of the Steelers 11 wins were against teams that finished with winning records.

And tr1, don't think I can agree that the 2007 Giants were a fluke, since they did have a monster regular season the next year. Rather, I think the team wound up "shooting itself in the foot" (literally!) at the end of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TonyRomoProBowl

TonyRomoProBowl

Posted
Posted
The Giants were a fluke, right? I think everyone will agree.

So, basically, this proves my point, if you have few wins against winning teams, your chances of winning the SB aren't great...not nill, but not great.

Thanks, WB.

;)

WAIT...the 2007 Giants a fluke, are you out of your mind bro.......That was one of the best runs we have seen in years........A great late season and playoff run by Eli and a defense that was outstanding......putting pressure on QB's like no other team id ever seen.

You used to be a joke TR1, now your just way off base, even some of the higher ups here compare you to a bad SNL character.....SERIOUSLY MAN!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tr1

tr1

Posted
Posted
WAIT...the 2007 Giants a fluke, are you out of your mind bro.......That was one of the best runs we have seen in years........A great late season and playoff run by Eli and a defense that was outstanding......putting pressure on QB's like no other team id ever seen.

You used to be a joke TR1, now your just way off base, even some of the higher ups here compare you to a bad SNL character.....SERIOUSLY MAN!!!!

The Giants had a great run, but they weren't in anyone's predictions as a SB contender that year...that's what I meant as fluke.

BTW, TRPB, can you make a post without a comment about me.

I think you're becoming obsessed.

I love you, man...but, not in that way.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westbrook36

Westbrook36

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The Giants were a fluke, right? I think everyone will agree.

So, basically, this proves my point, if you have few wins against winning teams, your chances of winning the SB aren't great...not nill, but not great.

Thanks, WB.

;)

No, actually it doesn't prove your point.

I know your game, tr1. You take one season out of the 5 I posted and say something controversial; in this case, that the Giants SB year was a fluke. It has nothing to do with the averaged data of 5 years but it accomplishes your goal: changing the subject.

With many NFC East fans, you want people debating whether or not the Giants season was a fluke rather than me proving to you that the last 5 SB winners averaged 4 wins against winning teams during the regular season.

I notice you didn't mention anything about the other 4 teams. Of course you didn't. You hooked 2 posters in with your very obvious tactic.

Instead of talking about your fallacy of thinking that wins during the regular season against winning teams correlates to postseason success, you attempt to have us talking about the NY Giants SB season.

Congrats on the fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
McD5

McD5

Posted
Posted
:rotflmao:

Glad to see the agenda-boyz could make it.

If agenda boyz means knowing that JC would never be anything from day 1, then sign me up.

If agenda boyz means bashing a qb for years who obviously had great talent from the start, Romo sits to pee, then no....don't include me in that historic fail.

Keep the comedy coming tr1. You never cease to deliver.:hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jbigdog123

jbigdog123

Posted
Posted
2008 Pittsburgh Steelers: (4) Balt x2, NE, Dal

2007 NY Giants: (2) NYJ, Atl

2006 Indianapolis Colts: (3) Phi, NE, NYG

2005 Pittsburgh Steelers: (4) SD, Cin, Chi, Min

2004 New England Patriots: (7) Pitt, Buff x2, Seattle, NYJ x2, Balt)

An average of 4 wins against winning teams per year for the last 5 Superbowl winners.

Good thread and stats, thanks.

It's comical to read one particular village idiot getting owned, time and time again, we'll done WB36.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dockeryfan

dockeryfan

Posted
Posted

The wins against teams with winning records is always a bit of fail.

How do you look going into the playoffs. That's the key. The Vikings are flailing a bit. The Eagles are on a 6 game win streak. Give them their due.

Now they haven't looked great, giving up 17 unanswered against Denver. But they are winning. Let's see how they do against Dallas before passing judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westbrook36

Westbrook36

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I want an Eagles win more than anything this weekend. I know what happens when I want an Eagles win more than anything. When I'm even keeled, they normally do ok. Life or death, they leave me at the alter every time.

dock, do you really think Cole is terrible or are you just talking some light smack? I thought he did "ok" in his relief of Jackson. This week he has Ratliff so we know he isn't going to dominate; he'll be lucky to hold his own.

I guess my point is if you told me one of 22 starters would be lost for the season, and you got me to pick the position; Center would be one of my first 5 picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CowboysSaintsFan

CowboysSaintsFan

Posted
Posted
I want an Eagles win more than anything this weekend. I know what happens when I want an Eagles win more than anything. When I'm even keeled, they normally do ok. Life or death, they leave me at the alter every time.

dock, do you really think Cole is terrible or are you just talking some light smack? I thought he did "ok" in his relief of Jackson. This week he has Ratliff so we know he isn't going to dominate; he'll be lucky to hold his own.

I guess my point is if you told me one of 22 starters would be lost for the season, and you got me to pick the position; Center would be one of my first 5 picks.

Honestly, we're more concerned with Jackson, Maclin, Weaver, Westbrook, McCoy, Vick, Akers, Peters(he won the matchup battle against Ware the last time out), and of course McNabb this week.

In our game against SD, the Chargers were without their starting center, RT, and one of their Gs got knocked out, and we still couldn't generate much pressure.

One of the things I've noticed Reid and Morninweg do well is in their max protection(i.e. chipping pass rushers and blitzers with extra blockers), so Jackson's absense will probably be moot in this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CowboysSaintsFan

CowboysSaintsFan

Posted
Posted
Cole = Artis Hicks type player. Pretty good and will give you quality reps, but not great.

He's a liability at center in my mind.

I will gladly trade our FO and our coaching staff for their's. Reid and Banner have consistently gotten and developed quality OL every year, which is why they have good depth consistently.

I'm more concerned with Marc Columbo's loss on our side, quite frankly - our pass protection hasn't been the same since. The Eagles OL has held up pretty well despite the losses of both of the Andrews brothers all year, OTOH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westbrook36

Westbrook36

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah, you might be right. He has started at Guard all year long over the bust Stacy Andrews. I just think that even if his play is 20 percent less than Jackson's it really doesn't matter. The guys they clog into the center of the line normally don't rush the passer. He has shown the ability to pick up blitzes from his RG position. As long as he can complete the Center to QB exchange, its really of no consequence if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dallasfan

dallasfan

Posted
Posted
I will gladly trade our FO and our coaching staff for their's. Reid and Banner have consistently gotten and developed quality OL every year, which is why they have good depth consistently.

I'm more concerned with Marc Columbo's loss on our side, quite frankly - our pass protection hasn't been the same since. The Eagles OL has held up pretty well despite the losses of both of the Andrews brothers all year, OTOH.

In Colombo's 8.5 starts, 17 sacks (he started 9, but got hurt in the first quarter)

In Free's 7.5 starts, 15 sacks (5 of which were against GB when Colombo got hurt)

So while I think Colombo is better than Free, I wouldn't say our pass protection hasn't been the same

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...