Some Super Thoughts

[Smidgeon]

In the last decade (since and including the '00 season), Green Bay is the only team in the top 7 of overall record to not appear in a Super Bowl. And all except Philadelphia and Baltimore had multiple appearances.

Only six teams have over 100 wins in those eleven seasons (New England, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Philly, Green Bay, and Baltimore) with the Giants being the only team to be in two Super Bowls with less than 100 wins in that span.

Some teams in that time that at least made an appearance (with their record ranking since '00):

Arizona - 30th (lost)
Oakland - 27th (lost)
St Louis - 23rd (lost)
Carolina - 21st (lost)
Tampa Bay - 15th (lost)
Seattle - 15th (won)
Chicago - 12th (lost)
New Orleans - 10th (won)

I would argue that over the last decade, the NFL franchises can be grouped into three tiers:

1) The steady teams who year in and year out not only win a lot of games each year, but also have a chance to make it to the Super Bowl and do (New England, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh) due to talent, coaching, and/or ownership structure.

2) The teams on the brink who seem to have that chance, winning a lot of games every year, but haven't quite arrived on the same plateau (Philly, Baltimore).

3) The ones who simply hope that lighting strikes and they make it to the Super Bowl despite having less than a consistant winning tradition.

(I think the Giants and the Packers are tweaner teams for different reasons. The Giants because they've appeared twice but don't win as consistently, and the Packers because they win consistenly but haven't appeared.)

What does all this mean? Practically nothing. Except to note that the Packers are one of the few teams that has proven capable of maintaining a winning tradition, and yet that hasn't translated to a Super Bowl appearance the way one would expect.

IT'S TIME TO TAKE THAT NEXT STEP!

Some interesting things I learned while writing this up:

* Green Bay's record since the '93 season (the start of modern Free Agency) is the third best behind New England and Pittsburgh. Pitt has one more Super Bowl victory, and NE has two more victories and one more loss.

* Since the '93 season, the only team with one of the top 12 records to not appear in a Super Bowl is the Minnesota Vikings.

* The top 5 teams all have multiple Super Bowl appearances.

[red]

we should be the team to beat in the NFC

the eagles game was close because we let it be close, if our offense and defense continue to do their thing and ST just doesn't screw up, then i don't know how anyone can beat us

IMO we would have to lose, not get beat

[Joemailman]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

[red]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

or slocum or james jones or jarrett bush

[Guiness]

Seattle certainly didn't win their SB!

St-Louis was also there twice - won once (2000)

[Smidgeon]

Seattle certainly didn't win their SB!

St-Louis was also there twice - won once (2000)

Baltimore won at the end of the 2000 year and St Louis at the end of 1999 (http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history).

[Smidgeon]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

Actually, I'm tending to think two things. First, Favre's playoff interceptions. Second, it's due.

[vince]

The defense is world class. The offense still feels the pain of losing Finley - and Grant up until Philly.

[Fritz]

I think the injuries - three in particular - will cost this team. I'm thinking Grant, Finley - and Mike Neal. Yes, Mike Neal. I think his loss was big. He seemed to me to be a difference maker (a potential difference maker, at least) who could have helped this team get penetration without blitzing as much and could have taken some load off some of the guys on the line.

[gbgary]

In other words, if the Packers don't win it all, it's McCarthy's fault.

if they make it to the superbowl and have the lead and he gets his intestines all twisted up again and they lose...yes.

[mmmdk]

I think the injuries - three in particular - will cost this team. I'm thinking Grant, Finley - and Mike Neal. Yes, Mike Neal. I think his loss was big. He seemed to me to be a difference maker (a potential difference maker, at least) who could have helped this team get penetration without blitzing as much and could have taken some load off some of the guys on the line.

We are going to win the super bowl; injuries are mute!

[swede]

moot?

[MJZiggy]

We are going to win the super bowl; injuries are mute!

Actually, they usually come with a certain amount of pained hollering. Not quiet at all unless the guy gets knocked out.

[swede]

So knocked out is the mute point...

[mmmdk]

moot?

Mittens?

[pbmax]

Speaking of mute injuries, did DeSean Jackson have the same injury as Paul Pierce last year? Terrible, debilitating, requiring surgery, until it was time to go back in? Did anyone catch any coverage of his actual ailment?

[gbgary]

lol

[mmmdk]

Actually, they usually come with a certain amount of pained hollering. Not quiet at all unless the guy gets knocked out.

True!

Moot has become a lame word. in LOTR there's a thing called "Entmoot" - a meeting of Ents; somehow the old english word "moot" got torn asunder by cowboys with a mouthful of beans.

[swede]

...somehow the old english word "moot" got torn asunder by cowboys with a mouthful of beans.

I've read a lot of Zane Gray and Louis L'Amour. I think the tearing asunder of English archaisms by the cowpokes is meant to evoke the tension of independent actors living within a feudal system.

[mmmdk]

I've read a lot of Zane Gray and Louis L'Amour. I think the tearing asunder of English archaisms by the cowpokes is meant to evoke the tension of independent actors within a feudal system.

Damn straight!