Best SB Winner Since 2010

[Kip Smithers]

56 minutes ago, lancerman said:

They got destroyed because their QB crapped the bed and was turning the ball over. And no they didn’t have a secondary that featured a CB like Revis, they also didn’t have nearly the linebackers Corp. 

You’re making a no limits fallacy.  

And why did he crap the bed and turn the ball over? Was he playing against no defense? Were the Vikings offense playing against ghosts? You’re being obtuse. 

Revis was great but he wasn’t 2008-11 Revis. He was still amongst the best but that wasn’t him at his peak. Rhodes was great this season. All pro just like Revis was. Harrison Smith is one of the best safeties in the league. Sendejo was a good compliment to him. And Waynes was perhaps a weak link and not as good as Browner but he was improving. If you want to admit you only watched the Vikings in the playoffs then just admit it because they were an elite defense and had playmakers at every level. They were a better defense in literally every metric than the 2014 Pats yet you still wanna do the name game. Go ahead, comparing these is futile given that it’s clear who was better. 

[Kip Smithers]

15 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

How?

I'm being silly for pointing at that the Vikings game was likely an outlier and that the blowout was mostly due to Keenum crapping the bed?

It’s silly because the Vikes got flat out dominated. Keenum played poorly because he was forced into that. He got pressured, he got thrown off his rhythm. Like stop acting as if he was just playing by himself. But even in spite that Keenum had nothing to do with Minnesota not being able to really touch Foles, Keenum had nothing to do with the throes Foles was making, had nothing to do with Eagles having success on the ground, he had nothing to do with the Eagles going 10/14 on third down. So get outta here with that nonsense. And how can it be an anomaly when they scored 30 or more regularly? 

[Bolts223]

Just now, Kip Smithers said:

It’s silly because the Vikes got flat out dominated. Keenum played poorly because he was forced into that. He got pressured, he got thrown off his rhythm. Like stop acting as if he was just playing by himself. But even in spite that Keenum had nothing to do with Minnesota not being able to really touch Foles, Keenum had nothing to do with the throes Foles was making, had nothing to do with Eagles having success on the ground, he had nothing to do with the Eagles going 10/14 on third down. So get outta here with that nonsense.

Ok? So my point stands. Why weren't the Eagles able to consistently able to do that against Atlanta or other inferior defenses they faced all season? If the Vikings/Eagles were to play 100 times, do you think that's the typical result?

Just because the Eagles blew out the Vikings has no bearing on how they would've done against the 2014/2016 Patriots.

 

[Kip Smithers]

9 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

Ok? So my point stands. Why weren't the Eagles able to consistently able to do that against Atlanta or other inferior defenses they faced all season? If the Vikings/Eagles were to play 100 times, do you think that's the typical result?

Just because the Eagles blew out the Vikings has no bearing on how they would've done against the 2014/2016 Patriots.

 

Because Foles sucked. He was inaccurate, he was out of sync particularly early on. They didn’t execute, had some miscues like for instance fumbling on the first drive of the game. It happens.

Would they have done it vs Vikings again?Well if they can’t get pressure and Nick Foles is making throws all over then yes that happens again. It’s not just the Vikings, like stop being idiotic. They were high scoring quite regularly throughout the year. They dropped 50 vs Denver for goodness sake. They dropped 40 vs Rams. 11 out of 19 games they dropped at least 30. 4 out of 19 games they scored less than 20. Which out of the two is more representative of who they were?

[Bolts223]

59 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

Because Foles sucked. He was inaccurate, he was out of sync particularly early on. They didn’t execute, had some miscues like for instance fumbling on the first drive of the game. It happens.

Would they have done it vs Vikings again?Well if they can’t get pressure and Nick Foles is making throws all over then yes that happens again. It’s not just the Vikings, like stop being idiotic. They were high scoring quite regularly throughout the year. They dropped 50 vs Denver for goodness sake. They dropped 40 vs Rams. 11 out of 19 games they dropped at least 30. 4 out of 19 games they scored less than 20. Which out of the two is more representative of who they were?

Right. And Keenum didn't suck? Funny how you completely disregarded that in the context of Keenum vs the Eagles defense but you will use it in defense of Foles vs the Falcons defense. Very convenient.

The 2016 Patriots gave up over 30 points a total of 1 time in 19 games.

The 2014 Patriots gave up over 30 points a total of 3 times in 19 games, and 2/3 times were very early in the season before they had really hit their stride. (Week 1 against Miami and Week 4 against KC)

See? I can do that too!

[Kip Smithers]

1 hour ago, Bolts223 said:

Right. And Keenum didn't suck? Funny how you completely disregarded that in the context of Keenum vs the Eagles defense but you will use it in defense of Foles vs the Falcons defense. Very convenient.

The 2016 Patriots gave up over 30 points a total of 1 time in 19 games.

The 2014 Patriots gave up over 30 points a total of 3 times in 19 games, and 2/3 times were very early in the season before they had really hit their stride. (Week 1 against Miami and Week 4 against KC)

See? I can do that too!

No because they were two very different circumstances. Keenum was pressured and Foles wasn’t. Foles started off very slow and he grew into the game. Keenum was hit and pressured regularly. Its easy to make that distinction.

Thats cool that the Pats did that but it’s funny that you think that’s the same. The best defenses tend to give up less than 20. The best offenses average at least close to 30. You just gave a false equivalency lol. If you’re claim to be a great defends and youre proud of giving up less than 30 then you aren’t a very good defense. The Pats gave up more than 20 9 times. Vikings 6 times. Nice try and I didn’t even account for schedule strength lol.

[lancerman]

39 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

No because they were two very different circumstances. Keenum was pressured and Foles wasn’t. Foles started off very slow and he grew into the game. Keenum was hit and pressured regularly. Its easy to make that distinction.

Thats cool that the Pats did that but it’s funny that you think that’s the same. The best defenses tend to give up less than 20. The best offenses average at least close to 30. You just gave a false equivalency lol. If you’re claim to be a great defends and youre proud of giving up less than 30 then you aren’t a very good defense. The Pats gave up more than 20 9 times. Vikings 6 times. Nice try and I didn’t even account for schedule strength lol.

2014 Pats had a harder schedule

[Bolts223]

3 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

No because they were two very different circumstances. Keenum was pressured and Foles wasn’t. Foles started off very slow and he grew into the game. Keenum was hit and pressured regularly. Its easy to make that distinction.

Thats cool that the Pats did that but it’s funny that you think that’s the same. The best defenses tend to give up less than 20. The best offenses average at least close to 30. You just gave a false equivalency lol. If you’re claim to be a great defends and youre proud of giving up less than 30 then you aren’t a very good defense. The Pats gave up more than 20 9 times. Vikings 6 times. Nice try and I didn’t even account for schedule strength lol.

That wan't the point of what I was saying. The point was that you were saying you thought the Eagles could go for over 30, and I was telling you that the Pats defense hardly ever gave up that many points. Not even against powerhouse offenses like the Steelers or Falcons.

[Kip Smithers]

5 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

That wan't the point of what I was saying. The point was that you were saying you thought the Eagles could go for over 30, and I was telling you that the Pats defense hardly ever gave up that many points. Not even against powerhouse offenses like the Steelers or Falcons.

 

Correct. So you have an offense that score 30 regularly against a defense that doesn’t give up 30 regularly, and I think the offense wins out and continues that trend. 

but again this goes back to matchups. Eagles from a mere talent perspective don’t have the star power on offense. But they had the best line in the league, along with the best offensive coaching staffs and a diverse run game which sets itself up for them to control games. You don’t have to be an historical offense to be able to score 30+ on a regular basis. 

 

[Kip Smithers]

9 hours ago, lancerman said:

2014 Pats had a harder schedule

Vikings faced 6 of the top 10 scoring offenses. Patriots in 2014 faced 4. Now granted the best two offenses the Pats faced averaged more than the Vikings faced but nevertheless Vikings still faced one of a lot of the best offenses in the league. Patriots just faced some of the better higher end offenses. Regardless Vikings were the best defense in the league and the Eagles straight up overpowered them with their line. A better line than the Patriots. 

[Bolts223]

15 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

 

Correct. So you have an offense that score 30 regularly against a defense that doesn’t give up 30 regularly, and I think the offense wins out and continues that trend. 

but again this goes back to matchups. Eagles from a mere talent perspective don’t have the star power on offense. But they had the best line in the league, along with the best offensive coaching staffs and a diverse run game which sets itself up for them to control games. You don’t have to be an historical offense to be able to score 30+ on a regular basis. 

 

And like I told you, the Steelers and Falcons both had very good to great O-lines, in addition to great skill players and the Patriots held both of them to under 30.

The Eagles O-line isn't so amazing that it's above being considered superior to any of the better o-lines of the past few years, sorry.

[JBURGE]

On 2/20/2018 at 11:53 AM, lancerman said:

On 2/20/2018 at 11:06 AM, 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

I might be biased, but the Packers did go 19-0 over a (almost) calendar year, with the super bowl being win #6 of that streak and a largely unchanged roster to start the next season. 

Wins:

2010 Playoff run

Giants 10-6
Bears (x2) 10-6
Eagles 10-6
Falcons 13-3
Steelers 12-4 Superbowl

2011 Reg  Season 13-0 start

Saints 13-3
Falcons 10-6
Lions 10-6
Giants 9-7 (lost to in playoffs and eventual SB winners)

Bunch of bad teams and 8-8 teams in the 2011 run. Pretty great streak though

 

[Kip Smithers]

On 27/02/2018 at 2:14 AM, Bolts223 said:

And like I told you, the Steelers and Falcons both had very good to great O-lines, in addition to great skill players and the Patriots held both of them to under 30.

The Eagles O-line isn't so amazing that it's above being considered superior to any of the better o-lines of the past few years, sorry.

The only o-line better than Philly is the Cowboys. The Steelers aren’t better and neither are the Falcons. And with the Falcons you forget that the anchor of that line they had was playing with a broken leg. Eagles had the best line in the league paired with a versatile running attack and an awesome coaching staff. 

[Bobikus]

Seattle, no contest.

[Super4]

On 2/9/2018 at 4:16 PM, Kiltman said:

Is this the team in a vacuum or the version of the team that played in the game?

No matter the scenario, it's still not Philly.