lancerman Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Just now, Hunter2_1 said: Get ready for him to remind you that they already beat Pittsburgh. zzzz. Okay. Jacksonville had probably the weakest schedule of the three, plays in the worst division of the the three, two of their last 3 games were against the bottom two defenses, and they still have a worse record. I get people love to jump on the new shiny thing, maybe in the NFC where the top teams really aren't that dominant they have a shot, but in the AFC it's the same thing every year. You don't get the benefit of the doubt until you pull a Ravens and actually do it. Better teams than Jacksonville have tried and failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 16 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said: 18 minutes ago, packerrfan74 said: On paper, they are the best team in the AFC and probably favorites to represent in the SB. Favourites? On paper better than PIT? If Antonio Brown is nowhere close to 100%, Jax will beat Pitt by 2+ scores. Regardless of where it's played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuralBill Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Just now, JBURGE25 said: If Antonio Brown is nowhere close to 100%, Jax will beat Pitt by 2+ scores. Regardless of where it's played. Good attempt, but no dice. With or without Brown, we are as good as anyone in the AFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 11 minutes ago, lancerman said: I don't. Jacksonville has not had a tough schedule and New England and Pittsburgh have two of the better offenses in the league with several of the most difficult players to defend and probably the two most talented QB's in the playoff. It'll be easily thevtwo toughest games they'll have all year. Did you watch their game against Pittsburgh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, lancerman said: Okay. Jacksonville had probably the weakest schedule of the three, plays in the worst division of the the three, two of their last 3 games were against the bottom two defenses, and they still have a worse record. I get people love to jump on the new shiny thing, maybe in the NFC where the top teams really aren't that dominant they have a shot, but in the AFC it's the same thing every year. You don't get the benefit of the doubt until you pull a Ravens and actually do it. Better teams than Jacksonville have tried and failed. Looooooooooooool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossburg Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 They remind me of Rex's Jets that went to back to back AFCCGs. Easy to dismiss because they have lulzy QB play (although Botles is playing better), but they keep the score down and can run the ball so the QB doesn't have to sling it, so really they can beat anyone just like those Jets. Then again, if some team figures out a way to get an early lead or Bortles totally craps the bed or there's some bad luck fumbles or something, I don't think this team can overcome that against good teams. Their margin of error for victory seems to be really low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetana34 Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Offense wins regular season. Defense wins championships. That was evident when Seattle destroyed Denver a few years back. Everyone talking about NE and PIT offenses like we don't routinely see offenses get shut down in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Just now, jrry32 said: Looooooooooooool. This is where you show your bias. Every year the NFC has everyone raving about how competetive it then come playoff time the new hot flavor of the month comes in and the supposedly dominant teams can't stop them and they make the Super Bowl. How many years were the Eagles dominant in the 2000's? Yeah they went to one Super Bowl. The Packers have been dominant since 2007. They went to one Super Bowl. The Saints had a good 5 year period where they were dominant. They went to one Super Bowl. Panthers get hot, they get in, Falcons get hot, they get in, Giants get hot, they get in, Cardinals get hot, they get in. Meanwhile in the AFC, since 2003. Patriots got there 6 times, Steelers got there 3 times, and Manning's team got there 4 times. That's dominance. Competition does not equal dominance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Just now, smetana34 said: Offense wins regular season. Defense wins championships. That was evident when Seattle destroyed Denver a few years back. Everyone talking about NE and PIT offenses like we don't routinely see offenses get shut down in the playoffs. Both of them are top ten defenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mox Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 I want to believe in them but as long as Bortles is there QB I can't trust them to go far. Ideally they'd represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, lancerman said: This is where you show your bias. Every year the NFC has everyone raving about how competetive it then come playoff time the new hot flavor of the month comes in and the supposedly dominant teams can't stop them and they make the Super Bowl. How many years were the Eagles dominant in the 2000's? Yeah they went to one Super Bowl. The Packers have been dominant since 2007. They went to one Super Bowl. The Saints had a good 5 year period where they were dominant. They went to one Super Bowl. Panthers get hot, they get in, Falcons get hot, they get in, Giants get hot, they get in, Cardinals get hot, they get in. Meanwhile in the AFC, since 2003. Patriots got there 6 times, Steelers got there 3 times, and Manning's team got there 4 times. That's dominance. Competition does not equal dominance. You didn't defend your point. The NFC is not weaker because it's more competitive. Since 2010, the NFC has a 4-3 advantage in Super Bowls, so your argument that the Jags have an easier road in the NFC lacks evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 5 minutes ago, lancerman said: Both of them are top ten defenses Loooooooooool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncoSojia Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 31 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said: totally different team now. Will be a great game if it happens Yeah they don't have Shazier anymore. That's gonna hurt them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetana34 Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, lancerman said: Both of them are top ten defenses So we agree then that if Pit/Ne win, it will be on the heels of their defenses, not offenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Just now, jrry32 said: You didn't defend your point. The NFC is not weaker because it's more competitive. Since 2010, the NFC has a 4-3 advantage in Super Bowls, so your argument that the Jags have an easier road in the NFC lacks evidence. And if you back two years it swings to the AFC having a 5-4 advantage. Big whup We are talking in the context of the AFC and Jacksonville and the dominant teams in the AFC. Since 2001 Brady, Ben and Manning account for a total of 9 Super Bowl wins and 14 appearances. The dominant teams in the AFC are simply more dominant and are a harder wall for the up and comers to break through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.