Best SB Winner Since 2010

[Kip Smithers]

2 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

The Vikings clearly didn't show up to that game at all. The Eagles also put up 15 points against a slightly above average Falcons defense, so what's your point?

The 2017 Eagles were a very good team, but I really don't think there is any argument of them being better than the 2013 Seahawks, 2014 Pats or 2016 Pats.

The 2017 Pats still came very close to beating them and are much inferior to the 2016 and 2014 versions of them. I'm inclined to believe that those defenses could've actually made a stop or two throughout that game and that the offenses would've enjoyed similar success.

The 2013 Seahawks defense would've been far better than any defense the Eagles saw this season.

And to restate Lancerman's point - the League in 2013 and 2014 was FAR more deep and stronger than it is now. I don't think the Eagles or Patriots of this year make the SB in either of those seasons if they were to take the place of their counterparts from back then.

Why did they only put up 15 points? Because their QB play wasn’t as good that game. And get outta here the Vikings didn’t show up. They marched down the field on their first drive and scored and then proceeded to get dominated. They got outplayed.

Again look at the matchups amongst all those teams that you mentioned the Eagles had by far the best o-line and the deepest d-line. They dominated and controlled games. I never said they were better than the Hawks. you could put 2016 and 2014 Pats vs the Eagles and they still wouldn’t slow down the offense of the Eagles. And I think it’s pretty much impossible to state that those Pats offenses would’ve been performed better than the one we just witnessed. 

[lancerman]

32 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

 Kip shhhhhh,  I'm enjoying the nonsensical rant. ? 

I think He, like most of the Sports World is still in utter shock of Just how Good, this Eagles "Team" as a whole actually turned out to be. To of accomplished what they did from a Injury standpoint proves how strong they were 1 thru 53.

So that part of his recency bias claim, holds true! At least for himself that's is.

I'm not shocked at all. I said to pretty much everyone I knew all year and in the playoffs that the Eagles were the one team I didn't want to see because I liked how deep their offense was. And I was overall right on that. I had much less regard for their defense. Proven right on that too. 

Also there's kind of this attempt at a narrative that the Eagles did something amazing because they won with injuries. Every team that goes into the playoffs is injured. The Patriots this year were missing Hightower, who is bar none the best defensive player on the team and they were missing their number 1 WR in Edelman all year. Every team goes into the playoffs with key injuries. The biggest thing for the Eagles was their QB was injured. Which would be a valid point but......

...Since the merger in 1970, 352 have entered into the NFL playoff. Of the QB's who led those 352 Nick Foles ranks 25th all time in passer rating and 13th all time in yards. So if you are good math, Nick Foles from the perspective of passer rating gave the Eagles a better playoff performance than 93% of QB's in the last nearly 50 years. And from the perspective of QB passing yards he did better than 97% of QB's in the playoffs. 

So you really couldn't have expected much better play from Wentz anyways, and if he played better it would be marginal. You couldn't play any better against the Vikings and Patriots. The Eagles were the best team this year and proved it in the playoffs.

But that's limited to 2017. 2014 was a different year, and the Patriots were a significantly better team, specifically on defense. They had 3 upgrades on the defensive line,  2 of the leagues best linebackers, and a generational CB. The fact that Kip thinks that difference wouldn't have mattered is highly dubious.

[lancerman]

24 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

Why did they only put up 15 points? Because their QB play wasn’t as good that game. And get outta here the Vikings didn’t show up. They marched down the field on their first drive and scored and then proceeded to get dominated. They got outplayed.

Again look at the matchups amongst all those teams that you mentioned the Eagles had by far the best o-line and the deepest d-line. They dominated and controlled games. I never said they were better than the Hawks. you could put 2016 and 2014 Pats vs the Eagles and they still wouldn’t slow down the offense of the Eagles. And I think it’s pretty much impossible to state that those Pats offenses would’ve been performed better than the one we just witnessed. 

Here's the problem. You're just setting up a false standard and acting like the Eagles were unstoppable on offense and no teams could slow them down. They are not one of the greatest offenses we've ever seen. They had a really good offensive line I'll give you that. The Patriots in 2014 had 3 people on their defensive line that at the time would have knocked every single member of the defensive line down on the depth chart. They also had the best cornerback of the late 2000's and early 2010's on their team who was at a high level and capable of shutting anyone down. In addition to a more stacked secondary. 

So your just not providing must concrete evidence. The Eagles didn't blow out every team they played. The 2014 Patriots defense was also significantly better. Your basically making the argument that 3 significantly better lineman, 2 light years better linebackers, one of the greatest CB's ever and a much deeper secondary would not have faired any better in that game. K.

[Bolts223]

This thread reeks of recency bias. 

[Bolts223]

59 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

Why did they only put up 15 points? Because their QB play wasn’t as good that game. And get outta here the Vikings didn’t show up. They marched down the field on their first drive and scored and then proceeded to get dominated. They got outplayed.

Again look at the matchups amongst all those teams that you mentioned the Eagles had by far the best o-line and the deepest d-line. They dominated and controlled games. I never said they were better than the Hawks. you could put 2016 and 2014 Pats vs the Eagles and they still wouldn’t slow down the offense of the Eagles. And I think it’s pretty much impossible to state that those Pats offenses would’ve been performed better than the one we just witnessed. 

The 2017 Patriots were very similar to the 2011 Patriots in that they had a lot of firepower on offense but very little on defense. 

The Pats gave up 41 points to the Eagles - I'm inclined to believe adding the likes of Hightower, Chandler Jones, Butler/Revis, McCourty and Wilfork to that defense would definitely make a difference in the ability of the Pats to slow the Eagles offense down. 

[LaserFocus]

On 2/10/2018 at 12:22 AM, Bolts223 said:

Of course.

But if we are going to compare them to the 2016 Patriots:

2013 Seahawks went 13-3, 2016 Patriots went 14-2 (With Brady not playing in 4 of those games)

2013 Seahawks had a +186 point differential, 2016 Patriots had a +191 point differential.

Both were the #1 defense each season in points allowed.

Both had great secondaries.

Brady > Wilson

Belichick > Carroll

The 2016 Patriots are a far more experienced team where most of the players had already won a SB before.

Let me put it to you this way: If we were to have a scenario where these two teams were to play, I'd pick the 2016 Patriots to win.

I don't think the 2013 Seahawks defense wold have been shredded by Matt Ryan the way the 2016 Patriots were. The way Seattle totally dominated Denver was extremely impressive, the overwhelming majority of Manning's stats came when the game was out of hand. I think the 2013 Broncos were stronger than the 2016 Falcons as well. Seattle's defense was just at a higher level that season.

[Kip Smithers]

34 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

The 2017 Patriots were very similar to the 2011 Patriots in that they had a lot of firepower on offense but very little on defense. 

The Pats gave up 41 points to the Eagles - I'm inclined to believe adding the likes of Hightower, Chandler Jones, Butler/Revis, McCourty and Wilfork to that defense would definitely make a difference in the ability of the Pats to slow the Eagles offense down. 

Not against the Eagles O-line. And against the coaching of the Eagles staff. Again a better defense than the Pats failed. Philly dropped 50 on Denver as well. The Pats defense ain’t 13 Seahawks or 15 Broncos. 

[Kip Smithers]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

Here's the problem. You're just setting up a false standard and acting like the Eagles were unstoppable on offense and no teams could slow them down. They are not one of the greatest offenses we've ever seen. They had a really good offensive line I'll give you that. The Patriots in 2014 had 3 people on their defensive line that at the time would have knocked every single member of the defensive line down on the depth chart. They also had the best cornerback of the late 2000's and early 2010's on their team who was at a high level and capable of shutting anyone down. In addition to a more stacked secondary. 

So your just not providing must concrete evidence. The Eagles didn't blow out every team they played. The 2014 Patriots defense was also significantly better. Your basically making the argument that 3 significantly better lineman, 2 light years better linebackers, one of the greatest CB's ever and a much deeper secondary would not have faired any better in that game. K.

They weren’t unstoppable, but they are freakin’ difficult to stop because of their line. You always have the advantage. Enough with the naivety. That always wins. It’s what allowed the Cowboys to be 12 win team to different times. Like you act like the Eagles all year faced defenses that pailed in comparison to your beloved Pats and they didn’t. They destroyed the best defense in the league. They destroyed a Denver defense in which had playmakers every where. That Pats defense weren’t the  85 bears. So keep rattling off those names, it’s not really helping. 

[Bolts223]

1 hour ago, Kip Smithers said:

Not against the Eagles O-line. And against the coaching of the Eagles staff. Again a better defense than the Pats failed. Philly dropped 50 on Denver as well. The Pats defense ain’t 13 Seahawks or 15 Broncos. 

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.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, LaserFocus said:

I don't think the 2013 Seahawks defense wold have been shredded by Matt Ryan the way the 2016 Patriots were. The way Seattle totally dominated Denver was extremely impressive, the overwhelming majority of Manning's stats came when the game was out of hand. I think the 2013 Broncos were stronger than the 2016 Falcons as well. Seattle's defense was just at a higher level that season.

2016 Patriots defense only gave up 21 points. The other TD (which I'm sure you'll be happy about) is the pick six. I think the Broncos were overall better but they suffered from the same thing all high power Manning offenses have suffered from in the playoff. Timing offense vs physical defense.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, Kip Smithers said:

They weren’t unstoppable, but they are freakin’ difficult to stop because of their line. You always have the advantage. Enough with the naivety. That always wins. It’s what allowed the Cowboys to be 12 win team to different times. Like you act like the Eagles all year faced defenses that pailed in comparison to your beloved Pats and they didn’t. They destroyed the best defense in the league. They destroyed a Denver defense in which had playmakers every where. That Pats defense weren’t the  85 bears. So keep rattling off those names, it’s not really helping. 

Yeah and the Cowboys had a great offensive line for years and they won exactly 1 playoff game in recent memory for it. Sorry no, Nink/Wilfork/Jones/Browner/Revis/Hightower/Collins are 7 positions on defense where you are getting an upgrade and a massive one at that. 

Put it this way. There is no receiver on the Eagles that Revis wouldn't have outright shut down. Nor is there a receiver Browner and safety help wouldn't have shut down (they were shutting down #1's on every team that year). The Patriots actually did a really good job of stopping the Eagles run, Wilfork would have made that worse. The Patriots had next to know pass rush, Jones at the time was one of the stronger pass rushers in the league. And their real strength was the Collins and Hightower LB duo who would have been mixed between covering Ertz and blitzing adding to the non existent pass rush (which would already be improved anyways by this point). You don't think that makes a difference? Why couldn't the Denver offense that was tearing the league apart to that point blow them out?

See the difference is when I'm saying names I'm showing you who the talented players are, that they would be significant upgrades in each level of the defense, compared to what was fielded. 

You're just offering absolutely anecdotal arguments like "it would still be a shootout, they have a strong offensive line". It's a valueless argument. The 2007 Patriots, 2013 Broncos, 2004 Colts, 1984 Dolphins were all shutdown and those offenses were light years better than the Eagles. So don't act like they were some historical world beaters because they lit up the Vikings and the Patriots secondary.

[Dome]

Seattle for sure. My dad is a big Seahawks fan, I watched every postseason game with him that year. Awesome memories.

[Kip Smithers]

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

Yeah and the Cowboys had a great offensive line for years and they won exactly 1 playoff game in recent memory for it. Sorry no, Nink/Wilfork/Jones/Browner/Revis/Hightower/Collins are 7 positions on defense where you are getting an upgrade and a massive one at that. 

Put it this way. There is no receiver on the Eagles that Revis wouldn't have outright shut down. Nor is there a receiver Browner and safety help wouldn't have shut down (they were shutting down #1's on every team that year). The Patriots actually did a really good job of stopping the Eagles run, Wilfork would have made that worse. The Patriots had next to know pass rush, Jones at the time was one of the stronger pass rushers in the league. And their real strength was the Collins and Hightower LB duo who would have been mixed between covering Ertz and blitzing adding to the non existent pass rush (which would already be improved anyways by this point). You don't think that makes a difference? Why couldn't the Denver offense that was tearing the league apart to that point blow them out?

See the difference is when I'm saying names I'm showing you who the talented players are, that they would be significant upgrades in each level of the defense, compared to what was fielded. 

You're just offering absolutely anecdotal arguments like "it would still be a shootout, they have a strong offensive line". It's a valueless argument. The 2007 Patriots, 2013 Broncos, 2004 Colts, 1984 Dolphins were all shutdown and those offenses were light years better than the Eagles. So don't act like they were some historical world beaters because they lit up the Vikings and the Patriots secondary.

What’s the point anymore? You clearly don’t understand the value of an o-line or matchups for that matter. Your team out of all teams should recognise this. You’re looking at the Eagles from a personnel perspective which is your error.

if the Eagles destroyed the Vikings with instead replacing the best players on that defense with the back ups or lesser players, you think you can throw out the excuse “well if Vikings had so and so that they wouldn’t have dominated”. Obviously we have the results to dismiss that but point is that you’re ignoring that when you have an o-line this good it don’t really matter who is out there. 

Why couldbt Denver blow out the Pats, ummm because again matchups. The offense styles are vastly different to what the Eagles bring. Like seriously. Eagles had a dominant run game, mixed a passing attack that presented a number of different challenges and they had offensive staff that plays a huge part in why they are successful.

[lancerman]

4 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

What’s the point anymore? You clearly don’t understand the value of an o-line or matchups for that matter. Your team out of all teams should recognise this. You’re looking at the Eagles from a personnel perspective which is your error.

if the Eagles destroyed the Vikings with instead replacing the best players on that defense with the back ups or lesser players, you think you can throw out the excuse “well if Vikings had so and so that they wouldn’t have dominated”. Obviously we have the results to dismiss that but point is that you’re ignoring that when you have an o-line this good it don’t really matter who is out there. 

Why couldbt Denver blow out the Pats, ummm because again matchups. The offense styles are vastly different to what the Eagles bring. Like seriously. Eagles had a dominant run game, mixed a passing attack that presented a number of different challenges and they had offensive staff that plays a huge part in why they are successful.

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

[JBURGE]

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