Best SB Winner Since 2010

[lancerman]

46 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

As much as i hate to say it, Seattle. Green Bay could have been there if they won in 2011, but oh well. 

What would say about the Panthers two years ago if they won? Instantly this thread would turn into a majority consensus with either of those two

[wackywabbit]

52 minutes ago, lancerman said:

What would say about the Panthers two years ago if they won? Instantly this thread would turn into a majority consensus with either of those two

I don't view teams by their record as much as others. I never thought the Panthers were THAT great of a team that year. 

[Bolts223]

2 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

I don't view teams by their record as much as others. I never thought the Panthers were THAT great of a team that year. 

I don't really even think the Packers were that good for a 15-1 team either.

As good as that offense was the defense was straight up garbage.

I can name a number of 13-3 or 14-2 teams that didn't even win the SB that I think were better. (2012 Broncos, 2010 Patriots, 06 Chargers, 05 Colts, etc)

[Kip Smithers]

7 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

It doesn't have to be.

The Patriots offense also went completely off on the Eagles supposedly good defense. (With Cooks out for most of the game, mind you)

The Patriots defense just has to be good enough to keep the Eagles from scoring more than 33 points - not that difficult of a task.

The Vikings offense turning the ball over had a lot to do with why the Ealges were able to put up 38 on the Vikings. In any case, the Vikings played like crap. 

In any case, the Eagles offense was not averaging 38 or 41 points a game (Whether it be with Wentz or Foles) throughout the course of the season.

Why should I expect that they would do so against a very good defense in the 2014 or 2016 Patriots? Your argument has literally become that having Hightower/Jones/Revis/Wilfork/etc would make zero difference in how that game played out, and that's just ridiculous.

Yeah the Pats did go off against the Eagles D and that’s why I said it’d be a shootout. 

The vikes turned the ball over, Eagles had nothing to do with that eh? 

The Pats weren’t averaging 34 or however much they scored, you think that’s an accurate and true reflection.

 I think with them the Eagles offense would still be dominant. I still think they score at least 30. Yes. You seem to think that well the Eagles scored that many points this year because the Pats didn’t have the players on defense. Well no, the Eagles offense is fully capable of dominating defenses because they can control the game with their o-line. 

[Bolts223]

4 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

Yeah the Pats did go off against the Eagles D and that’s why I said it’d be a shootout. 

The vikes turned the ball over, Eagles had nothing to do with that eh? 

The Pats weren’t averaging 34 or however much they scored, you think that’s an accurate and true reflection.

 I think with them the Eagles offense would still be dominant. I still think they score at least 30. Yes. You seem to think that well the Eagles scored that many points this year because the Pats didn’t have the players on defense. Well no, the Eagles offense is fully capable of dominating defenses because they can control the game with their o-line. 

Brady threw 2 interceptions in 2016 during the regular season. Eagles deserve all the credit in the world for the turnovers, but Case Keenum is no Tom Brady. It's reasonable to assume the Pats offense in 2014 or 2016 wouldn't turn the ball over 3 times.

If we are going to use anecdotal cases, the 2016 Pats held the Falcons historic offense to 21 offensive points - why couldn't they do the same to the Eagles much inferior offense?

The Patriots offense was averaging 28 points a game, scoring 33 is only slightly above that average.

[Kip Smithers]

6 hours ago, lancerman said:

You’re entire point has been “Eagles have a really good offensive line, therefore nobody could stop them on offense and it doesn’t matter if you stack the defense”. Even though that’s the Eagles didn’t blow everybody out. 

Hell if you go by DVOA, guess what teams offensive line ranked 1st in run blocking? New England. Eagles ranked 22nd.. in pass blocking Eagles ranked 12th. So even just going by data, you aren’t right. 

And again your using the Vikings game as your end all be all proof, which is purely ancedotal and a prime example of decency bias. The Eagles played exactly 3 games where they scored more than they did in the Vikings game. So were the Vikings just worse than all those other teams? Or did the Eagles just have an abnormally good game? Because the outcome and strength of each unit is not supported by the result weighed against an actual sample size. Regency bias. Your taking a game that was an abnormality for both teams. So I’m that sense you are probably right, the Eagles matched up well against the Vikings but they also got the benefit of 3 turnovers, which contributed to the score, so some of the praise has to go to the defense. That’s also not a dynamic stat that would work across the board. 

The 2014 Patriots usually win the turnover battle and match up wise nearly every team had issues with them. Also your synopsis of the Eagles offense is something I could easily apply to the Patriots. They had the same runner in Blount that year, but also had White and Vereen out of the backfield, they had Edelman whose one of the best slot receivers going today, Gronk coming off one of his better years, Amendola, ohhhhhh and they beat a better defense in the Super Bowl (see I can be ancedotal too).

You’re not really contributing any actual analysis your just saying they have a good offensive line and in one occasion blew out a good defense and therefore it doesn’t matter if another team had a much more talented defense because any game would be a shootout, which wasn’t even true of their whole season. 

Recency bias

No my point is that the Eagles have a dominant o-line and it played a big role in their ability to score no matter who was in front of them they should dominate opposing defenses. 

You wanna go by DVOA, gotcha. 5 of the top 10 defenses in DVOA the Eagles scored over 30 against 4 of them and the other one being 28. You point out that they played only 3 games in which they scored more. Lool that’s not an indictment. How many teams he scored 38 points twice? And in those games they scored 51, 43 and 41. Wow, such a failure. The Vikings game was just the most impressive of the bunch. It’s not just one game, the Eagles showed that they are fully capable of doing that throughout the year. And I never said the Eagles o-line is the only reason why they could but it’s definitely where it starts. They have o-line, the talent and the coaching staff which makes them great. 

I couldn’t careless if you think I’m not contributing anything. 

[Kip Smithers]

21 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

Brady threw 2 interceptions in 2016 during the regular season. Eagles deserve all the credit in the world for the turnovers, but Case Keenum is no Tom Brady. It's reasonable to assume the Pats offense in 2014 or 2016 wouldn't turn the ball over 3 times.

If we are going to use anecdotal cases, the 2016 Pats held the Falcons historic offense to 21 offensive points - why couldn't they do the same to the Eagles much inferior offense?

The Patriots offense was averaging 28 points a game, scoring 33 is only slightly above that average.

I don’t understand, what has Eagles scoring 38 points got to do with Brady throwing two picks in the 2016 season. 

Because of matchups. Simple as that. And the Falcons didn’t have the depth at RB Philly have and their o-line was not as good in the SB. Simple as that. Falcons had the coaching but their o-line underperforming in that game, lack of run game doomed them in the end. Just like why were Seattle able to shutdown Denver but not be able to do the same thing vs 49ers.

[Bolts223]

2 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

I don’t understand, what has Eagles scoring 38 points got to do with Brady throwing two picks in the 2016 season. 

Because of matchups. Simple as that. And the Falcons didn’t have the depth at RB Philly have and their o-line was not as good in the SB. Simple as that. Falcons had the coaching but their o-line underperforming in that game, lack of run game doomed them in the end. Just like why were Seattle able to shutdown Denver but not be able to do the same thing vs 49ers.

You are just mentioning matchups without providing any basis to what you even mean.

But if we are going to talk about match ups then we can go ahead and talk about matchups

The Eagles beat the Patriots by 8 points, the Patriots were leading that game with just over 2 minutes to go.

It's reasonable to assume that the 2014/2016 Patriots would be able to have similar success on offense, with the players being very similar. (Plus you would have Edelman)

Then you have a defense that would add Wilfork, Revis, Hightower, Chandler Jones, and a few other players I'm probably forgetting. Bottom line - the Patriots defense would be significantly better at pretty much every level. What you are basically arguing is that would make ZERO difference in this game, which is ludicrous. If the Patriots defense was able to even make one more stop or force one more turnover in that game it's very likely you see a different result. It's reasonable to assume that all those additions result in (at the minimum) one or two extra stops that they didn't get with the 2017 team.

And the Falcons had one of the best o-lines in the league last year, and the Patriots made it look a lot worse than it was. Why is it unreasonable for me to think that the 2016 Patriots defense couldn't do the same thing to the Eagles O-line? What about it is so special compared to the Falcons? The Falcons had one of the best RB duos in the game between Freeman and Coleman. You are pretty much just stating things that are false now.

Oh and the 49ers scored 17 points on the Seahawks, they hardly went off. The Broncos offense did what so many Peyton Manning led offenses have done in the big game before, choke.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

Seattle and Green Bay were the 1st 2 to come to mind but Seattle takes it. Their defense was unfreakin believable. What they could do on the ground with Lynch and then different looks to Harvin and with Russell was a beauty to watch

[Kip Smithers]

2 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

You are just mentioning matchups without providing any basis to what you even mean.

But if we are going to talk about match ups then we can go ahead and talk about matchups

The Eagles beat the Patriots by 8 points, the Patriots were leading that game with just over 2 minutes to go.

It's reasonable to assume that the 2014/2016 Patriots would be able to have similar success on offense, with the players being very similar. (Plus you would have Edelman)

Then you have a defense that would add Wilfork, Revis, Hightower, Chandler Jones, and a few other players I'm probably forgetting. Bottom line - the Patriots defense would be significantly better at pretty much every level. What you are basically arguing is that would make ZERO difference in this game, which is ludicrous. If the Patriots defense was able to even make one more stop or force one more turnover in that game it's very likely you see a different result. It's reasonable to assume that all those additions result in (at the minimum) one or two extra stops that they didn't get with the 2017 team.

And the Falcons had one of the best o-lines in the league last year, and the Patriots made it look a lot worse than it was. Why is it unreasonable for me to think that the 2016 Patriots defense couldn't do the same thing to the Eagles O-line? What about it is so special compared to the Falcons? The Falcons had one of the best RB duos in the game between Freeman and Coleman. You are pretty much just stating things that are false now.

Oh and the 49ers scored 17 points on the Seahawks, they hardly went off. The Broncos offense did what so many Peyton Manning led offenses have done in the big game before, choke.

I don’t need to over complicate things when referring to matchups because it’s right there for you to see. You just are dismissing them. That’s on you not me. 

Yeah it is fair to assume that Patriots could have similar success, just like its fair to assume the Eagles would. But I never denied the Pats would score points. I’m just saying the Eagles would do the same.

Yes even with those players you mentioned Eagles would still overpower them. Eagles have fared against just as equally talented players and still did damage. A dominant o-line changes the game dramatically which is something you aren’t registering. Dallas were able to control games because of their line, it didn’t matter who they faced because they were that good. You’re basically saying put a better defense out there than the Pats did and it would’ve made a difference when pretty much against every one of the better defenses in the league they played against they score at least 30.

The Falcons had a darn good o-line but it wasn’t near as good as Philly, they dominated defenses pretty much throughout.Secondly in that SB, the most important player on that line was playing with a broken leg. You forget that. Third of all, during that game Falcons lost Coleman. I am very much aware that they had great duo of RBs. I was speaking on behalf of that sole individual game. 

Youre right they only scored 17, but again you’re ignoring that they still  presented more problems than Peyton? Why, because  of matchups? Believe it or not the NFL is about matchups. 

 

[Bolts223]

6 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

I don’t need to over complicate things when referring to matchups because it’s right there for you to see. You just are dismissing them. That’s on you not me. 

Yeah it is fair to assume that Patriots could have similar success, just like its fair to assume the Eagles would. But I never denied the Pats would score points. I’m just saying the Eagles would do the same.

Yes even with those players you mentioned Eagles would still overpower them. Eagles have fared against just as equally talented players and still did damage. A dominant o-line changes the game dramatically which is something you aren’t registering. Dallas were able to control games because of their line, it didn’t matter who they faced because they were that good. You’re basically saying put a better defense out there than the Pats did and it would’ve made a difference when pretty much against every one of the better defenses in the league they played against they score at least 30.

The Falcons had a darn good o-line but it wasn’t near as good as Philly, they dominated defenses pretty much throughout.Secondly in that SB, the most important player on that line was playing with a broken leg. You forget that. Third of all, during that game Falcons lost Coleman. I am very much aware that they had great duo of RBs. I was speaking on behalf of that sole individual game. 

Youre right they only scored 17, but again you’re ignoring that they still  presented more problems than Peyton? Why, because  of matchups? Believe it or not the NFL is about matchups. 

 

If you are just going to throw out match ups, I expect you to explain how a certain match up is favorable or it is just gibberish The Patriots in both 2014 and 2016 faced teams with just as good, if not better O-lines than the Eagles had in 2017. You just throwing out that the Eagles had a really good O-line means absolutely nothing.

And how do you justify that the Eagles would do the same against a defense that is far superior at every level? You really think that Eagles receivers are going to have the same success with Revis covering one of them? You think that Chandler Jones, Vince Wilfork and Donte Hightower wouldn't cause that line to have at least a little bit more trouble than the scrubs that were starting in the Pats front 7 in SB 52? You honestly believe that those players wouldn't do ANY BETTER? 

You provide no actual analysis, you just throw out that it's a bad matchup.

 

 

[Kip Smithers]

3 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

If you are just going to throw out match ups, I expect you to explain how a certain match up is favorable or it is just gibberish The Patriots in both 2014 and 2016 faced teams with just as good, if not better O-lines than the Eagles had in 2017. You just throwing out that the Eagles had a really good O-line means absolutely nothing.

And how do you justify that the Eagles would do the same against a defense that is far superior at every level? You really think that Eagles receivers are going to have the same success with Revis covering one of them? You think that Chandler Jones, Vince Wilfork and Donte Hightower wouldn't cause that line to have at least a little bit more trouble than the scrubs that were starting in the Pats front 7 in SB 52? You honestly believe that those players wouldn't do ANY BETTER? 

You provide no actual analysis, you just throw out that it's a bad matchup.

 

 

What o-lines did the Pats face are better? Unless they played Dallas during that period? 

Whatever I’ve explained why they’re a bad matchup but you are either ignoring it. I’ve said like 10 times that their ability to control the game with their line is a huge asset. Don’t be a ignorant because I should’ve have to explain what a line of that calibre does for an offense. 

You keep throwing out these upgrades. Just because they’re upgrades of already underwhelming talent doesnt mean they still can’t be dominated. Just like if the Giants o-line were to be upgraded as every position doesn’t mean that a certain can’t come out there and just flat out dominate them.

I provide nothing coming from the guy who has just rattled off names and thinking it makes them the 85 Bears. You say well if Revis was put on one of the receivers then they’d get shut down. Well they put Gilmore on their best receiver and he shut them down so Revis is mute. Vince Wilfork the one past his prime? That one. Who a month wasn’t resigned? That guy. Yes they would do better but not to the point that the Eagles wouldn’t dominate. 

[lancerman]

11 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

What o-lines did the Pats face are better? Unless they played Dallas during that period? 

Whatever I’ve explained why they’re a bad matchup but you are either ignoring it. I’ve said like 10 times that their ability to control the game with their line is a huge asset. Don’t be a ignorant because I should’ve have to explain what a line of that calibre does for an offense. 

You keep throwing out these upgrades. Just because they’re upgrades of already underwhelming talent doesnt mean they still can’t be dominated. Just like if the Giants o-line were to be upgraded as every position doesn’t mean that a certain can’t come out there and just flat out dominate them.

I provide nothing coming from the guy who has just rattled off names and thinking it makes them the 85 Bears. You say well if Revis was put on one of the receivers then they’d get shut down. Well they put Gilmore on their best receiver and he shut them down so Revis is mute. Vince Wilfork the one past his prime? That one. Who a month wasn’t resigned? That guy. Yes they would do better but not to the point that the Eagles wouldn’t dominate. 

According to DVOA the Eagles had the 22nd best RB offensive line and the 12th ranked pass blocking offensive line. By comparison the Patriots ranked 1st in run blocking and 14th ranked pass blocking offensive line. So I don't know where you keep getting your data. 

In addition, the Pats played Pittsburgh and New Orleans who ranked in the top of the league in pass blocking and where both in the top 10 (New Orleans #2 and Pittsburgh #7) in run blocking. Also the Patriots played and beat Atlanta who was ranked 8th in both categories. 

If you want to go to 2014 the Patriots beat Baltimore and Seattle in the playoffs who were both top 5 in run blocking and Denver, Baltimore, and Cincinnati who were top 5 in pass blocking.

So yeah provided nothing. You just made some silly argument that the Eagles had an incredible offensive line (statistically not true) and then said that any team that played them would find themselves in a shoot out (didn't happen for most teams that played them), and said a massive upgrade in players wouldn't matter in a game where the opposing team would have needed one more stop. So yeah your argument was valueless and you provided nothing of context besides your opinion and tried to act like it was profound. 

You might as well have just admitted you had nothing to back you up. 

[Kip Smithers]

Oh come on, your just using DVOA because it buffers your point. That same metric has the Giants having a better line than the Eagles, yeah I’m taking that metric with regards to o-line with a grain of salt. Anybody who watches football will tell you that Philly has the best o-line, if not one of. Furthermore I could just as easily bring up PFF having the Eagles as the best, so there’s your statistically accurate statement that you claimed I was missing. You didn’t even bother reading the meaning how they measured them. 

And top of that you’re coming up with lies. Find me where I said that “any team that faced the Eagles, would end up in a shootout”? So your using stats that you have no clue mean but then you try to run up the score by lacking in reading comprehension or quite frankly making up stuff. 

 

[Bolts223]

On 2/22/2018 at 2:56 PM, Kip Smithers said:

Oh come on, your just using DVOA because it buffers your point. That same metric has the Giants having a better line than the Eagles, yeah I’m taking that metric with regards to o-line with a grain of salt. Anybody who watches football will tell you that Philly has the best o-line, if not one of. Furthermore I could just as easily bring up PFF having the Eagles as the best, so there’s your statistically accurate statement that you claimed I was missing. You didn’t even bother reading the meaning how they measured them. 

And top of that you’re coming up with lies. Find me where I said that “any team that faced the Eagles, would end up in a shootout”? So your using stats that you have no clue mean but then you try to run up the score by lacking in reading comprehension or quite frankly making up stuff. 

 

In the context of this argument, you are basically arguing that an almost entirely different defense wouldn't make any difference and that game would still be a shootout. 

As far as DVOA, there is obviously some margin of error - but the overall point is the Eagles didn't exactly have some kind of historical O-line. It played great against a team that had one of the worst edge rusher situations in the league along with a secondary that was allowing big plays left and right. (Why Butler wasn't playing I still have no idea)