What does this Super Bowl teach us?

[woodbuck27]

Hey Scott:

Yesd I've won in Curling and there several times and believe this.You have to have it bet. the easrs and be physically strong to win at curling. That game is so often underestimated as a game not demanding the physical.

WRONG!!

Woody;

Not to change the subject, but do you agree that curling lost some of its charm with the development of the push "brooms" as opposed to the conventional looking brooms that our mothers and grandmothers used in the kitchen?

Patler:

It may have lost some of the color but it's certainly a lot easier on the hands and body.

I swang a Black Jack for about two decades (and made a lot of noise power sweeping. After weekend of 5-7- even 9 games in Provincial playdowns to try for the BRIAR I was nearly ready to die come the last couple of games.

Curling back then was very physical if you played competitively.

[RashanGary]

NIce post, Patler. I agree with a lot of what you said. I like watching Favre. It's been fun, but I'm ready to see him go for a couple of reasons.


My favorite sports writer so far in my short sports follwing career is Cliff Christl. I love his big picture approach to viewing sports. He takes a couple key concepts that he learned while talking to successfull NFL GM's, coaches and owners and tries to tie details of what is happening today back to the big picture. The big picture is "playmakers" in the absence of weak links and that the QB is the most important piece by a long shot. He claims you need a HOFer and maybe you do, but maybe he's a HOFer because he was the QB of a multi champion team and not the team was multi champion because he was QB. What caused what? I tend to lean toward team victory, not QB victory although a good QB is a necessity. I just don't think it has to be a stud.

A big reason I look forward to Favre retiring is because I want to see how much of a drop off it really is. I don't believe Cliff Christl that the Packers will fall apart, but I don't know that they won't. It will be interesting to see.


I tend to agree with your assessment, Patler. Great defense, lead by great pass rushing, very good ST's and a complete surrounding cast along with a game managing QB is enough to win. We'll see how it goes. It's going to be a fun time when #4 hangs them up. Lots of unknown. Lots of hypothosis' to test.

[RashanGary]

Some of you are are more seasoned in your football watching and so your opinions are grounded in more information. I'm still forming opinions so seeing a HOF QB hang them up gives me a good chance to see the effect of top tier QB play on a team. I think Ted Thompson has a very solid approach and will have a good support cast when Favre hangs them up. How badly will they flounder? If the QB is everything, it will be bad. If not, they'll be competitive well into the Rodgers (or whoever else ends up being the next guy) era.

[b bulldog]

I wouldn't mind seeing brett leave just so we could see what ARod has but brett is still better at the QB position and should be our starter.

[RashanGary]

I wouldn't mind seeing brett leave just so we could see what ARod has but brett is still better at the QB position and should be our starter.

yeah, that's how I see it too. If Brett comes back, he should start. If he leaves it will be fun to see what happens.

[twoseven]

Only problem with Brett moving on so we can find out what we have in Rodgers, there's no going back once BF is gone. That Brett is still playing better than almost every other QB in the league, save for a few, should be more than enough assurance that we are probably NOT better off with AR at this point. It might not be so fun if we are getting our butts kicked and have no other options but to deal with it, think pre-Brett Favre led Packers of the Infante and Gregg days.

[pbmax]

Superior skill wins even more often.

What I took away from this Super Bowl and from watching the Giants play against the Cowboys, Packers and Patriots was that they imposed their will on the other team!

They lined up and beat up the other teams and congratulations to them and their fans, they showed up and went to work!

Toughness can win championships!

[b bulldog]

Playmakers on both side of the ball are needed also, this game did show me this.

[RashanGary]

Playmakers on both side of the ball are needed also, this game did show me this.

I thought the Patritots defense did their job holding the Giants to 17.

14 on offense isn't enough. Did the Vikings ever score under 14 in the Moss era? I'd be curious to see how many times that happened. I'm guessing 2 or 3 in 50 games.

[b bulldog]

Did the Vikes ever make the SB?

[RashanGary]

Did the Vikes ever make the SB?

did they ever have the #2 defense and mistake free ST's?

[b bulldog]

No and they never had a QB that is a first ballot HOFer Brady's big screw up was leaving too much time on the clock last evening.

[Noodle]

It's an interesting debate with no real answer. SBs have been won by teams that were defense only (Baltimore). They have been won by teams that were purely offense (St. Louis). But they have most commonly been won by balanced teams (San Francisco, old Steelers, old and 96 Packers).

I think the Giants are more of a balance team. Yes, the Big Blue D was all man, but the O was very impressive. That 10 minute opening drive was a statement, as was the 19 to 10 time of possession advantage in the first half. The O, by converting 3rd downs, kept the Pats off the field, which made the job of the D much easier and kept the Pats from getting their mojo going.

And in the end, that Giant O drove the field and scored a TD on a great hot read by Manning to beat a blitz that left Plaixco in single coverage for about the only time all night. That was a great play under tremendous pressure and would not have been made by an average QB.

So yes, TT's emphasis on D line makes sense, and I think there will be life after Favre. But I don't think you can say that all you need is a stout D and an average QB and all will be good.

[b bulldog]

I'm not going down this road again so you can make an ass out of yourself like last evening. This stupid comments show you are very green football wise or you want to get a rise out of me, hopefully the latter

[RashanGary]

I'll agree with you that it's tough to win SB's when you depend on the deep ball. At some point in the playoffs, you're going to run into a monster defense that takes away the deep ball and passing game. Seems like teams that are balances on offense, have great defense and very good to great ST's get it done more than offense heavy teams.


The Pats have always been defense/ST's first with an offense that just sort of managed the game. As their defense aged and their ST's became less special, the Pats evolved into a pass happy team. The Colts lost when they were pass happy and won with defense, ST's and a game management offense. Packers won that way. Broncos won that way. Patriots won that way. Steelers. Ravens. Buccaneers. . . .


I'll agree that teams that have the great WR's and big pass game as their strength tend to run into trouble, but it's no excuse. Big game Brady is the man. He wins becuase he's so good, not because of his team. Sheesh, of all people, you should know this