Sunday, February 13, 2005
Pro Bowl
The Pro Bowl is wrapping up as I write this. Just a few comments...first, I did like the new addition to the game, where the fans could vote on a play to be run in the fourth quarter. The AFC used the flea flicker, while the NFC used the reverse. The Pro Bowl is about the fans, so naturally it made sense to let the fans have an actual impact in the meaningless, yet fun, ballgame. Also one more note, it was very interesting to see Vick with some true offensive talent around him. He really looked like a much more balanced quarterback, who could run or pass. Makes me wonder what he could really do with a solid number 1 receiver in Atlanta. Moss' name has been thrown around and one of the possible destinations has been Atlanta. However, I can't the Vikings considering trading him within the conference, as the Moss-Vick combo could be dynamite for years. Thats all I got for now.
Monday, February 07, 2005
QB Carter in Rehab
Former starting quarterback Quincy Carter has found himself in rehab once again. Seeing this made me wonder how the Cowboys would have faired this year with Quincy at the helm rather than Vinny. Obviously we will never know, but it is interesting to think about the fact that Quincy was the quarterback of our 10-6 team last season, so regardless of how he played, he did win when he started.
a
a
Dynasty?
Continuing on my brief discussion last post regarding whether or not the Patriots are a dynasty. While I believe the Patriots are a dynasty, I thought it would be interesting to compare the team to previous dynasties in NFL history. I thought one interesting comparison would be the number of pro bowlers on a team, especially considering the Patriots are known for their team play and lack of superstars. So here is what we have:
With the Patriots becoming a dynasty, one can argue that there have been four other dynasties in NFL history, the Packers in the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's, the Niners of the 80's, and the Cowboys of the 90's. Because the Pro Bowl wasn't established until 1971, and there were so few teams in the 60's, the Packers of the 60's will be excluded from this comparison. Also, my argument will not include Special teams Pro Bowl selections, as I can't find these positions from all the way back in the 70's, or 80's.
The Steelers: The Steelers have won four superbowls, IX (1974), X (1975), XIII (1978), and XIV (1979). In those years, the Steelers respectively had 5, 11, 10, and 10. What team filled with superstars, as they had double digit probowlers in three out of the four seasons in which they won the superbowl.
The Niners: The Niners have won five superbowls, in five tries. These superbowls include: XVI (1981), XIX (1984), XXIII (1988), and XXIV (1989). The niners did win another superbowl in 1995, however this was not the same team, especially considering Young was the QB at the time. In the four superbowls in the dynasty, the Niners had 6, 10, 5, and 6. Unlike the Steelers, the niners had much less probowlers, and we will see that these numbers are similar to the Patriots. This only strengthens the Montana and Brady comparisons, as both teams lacked several superstars, but the bottom line is that the QB's got the job done, and could win big games almost always.
The Cowboys: The Dallas franchise has 5 super bowls, 3 in their dynasty era. The Superbowls came in 1992 (XXVII), 1993 (XXVIII), and 1995 (XXX). In those three super bowl wins, the Cowboys had 6, 11, and 9 probowlers. This is very similar to the Steelers, as after that first super bowl, the number of probowlers increased dramatically. Also, the number of probowlers the Cowboys had was even more amazing considering how many more teams there were in the 90's than the 70's, when the Steelers played.
The Patriots: The Patriot's three super bowls came in the 2001 (XXXVI), 2003 (XXXVIII), and 2004 (XXXIX) super bowl seasons. In these three wins, the Patriots had 2, 3, and 4. This is absolutely ridiculous. How can this team win the Super Bowl 3 times and only have a combined 9 probowlers?!? This is what makes this team so special, the fact that they win as a team and have no superstars. But that makes you wonder how dominant is this team without a large amount of superstars? It makes it even more special, however one more thing is for sure, it is very difficult to compare this team to the Cowboys, Niners, or Steelers, who all had many more probowlers.
With the Patriots becoming a dynasty, one can argue that there have been four other dynasties in NFL history, the Packers in the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's, the Niners of the 80's, and the Cowboys of the 90's. Because the Pro Bowl wasn't established until 1971, and there were so few teams in the 60's, the Packers of the 60's will be excluded from this comparison. Also, my argument will not include Special teams Pro Bowl selections, as I can't find these positions from all the way back in the 70's, or 80's.
The Steelers: The Steelers have won four superbowls, IX (1974), X (1975), XIII (1978), and XIV (1979). In those years, the Steelers respectively had 5, 11, 10, and 10. What team filled with superstars, as they had double digit probowlers in three out of the four seasons in which they won the superbowl.
The Niners: The Niners have won five superbowls, in five tries. These superbowls include: XVI (1981), XIX (1984), XXIII (1988), and XXIV (1989). The niners did win another superbowl in 1995, however this was not the same team, especially considering Young was the QB at the time. In the four superbowls in the dynasty, the Niners had 6, 10, 5, and 6. Unlike the Steelers, the niners had much less probowlers, and we will see that these numbers are similar to the Patriots. This only strengthens the Montana and Brady comparisons, as both teams lacked several superstars, but the bottom line is that the QB's got the job done, and could win big games almost always.
The Cowboys: The Dallas franchise has 5 super bowls, 3 in their dynasty era. The Superbowls came in 1992 (XXVII), 1993 (XXVIII), and 1995 (XXX). In those three super bowl wins, the Cowboys had 6, 11, and 9 probowlers. This is very similar to the Steelers, as after that first super bowl, the number of probowlers increased dramatically. Also, the number of probowlers the Cowboys had was even more amazing considering how many more teams there were in the 90's than the 70's, when the Steelers played.
The Patriots: The Patriot's three super bowls came in the 2001 (XXXVI), 2003 (XXXVIII), and 2004 (XXXIX) super bowl seasons. In these three wins, the Patriots had 2, 3, and 4. This is absolutely ridiculous. How can this team win the Super Bowl 3 times and only have a combined 9 probowlers?!? This is what makes this team so special, the fact that they win as a team and have no superstars. But that makes you wonder how dominant is this team without a large amount of superstars? It makes it even more special, however one more thing is for sure, it is very difficult to compare this team to the Cowboys, Niners, or Steelers, who all had many more probowlers.
Super Bowl and Mavs
Just a few quick comments before I go to sleep:
First, I was happy to see a good Super Bowl game, something I feared I might not have seen tonight. I was suprised by a few things however. First, very uncharacteristic of the Pats to play such a sloppy first half. I think this allowed the Eagles to gain some confidence and stay in the game. I think if the Pats would have played against a real quality team that could have taken advantage of the poor Pats first half game, maybe we wouldn't be calling the Patriots a dynasty. Also, I was suprised that the Eagles were able to stay in the game considering McNabb had 1 carry for 0 yards. I would have guessed that McNabb would have had to have used his feet several times to keep this Eagles team in the game. However that wasn't the case, and I was very suprised that Andy Reid didn't have McNabb run more, let alone roll out or bootleg at least making McNabb's legs a threat which the Pats D would have to respect. Also, I want to give a standing ovation to TO. What an amazing game. If he were 100%, I am positive things would have been different. You could tell he wasn't at full strength, as all of his completions were short routes, a couple in which he broke for longer plays, yet none were long routes.
Another thing, I heard from a source that following the game Michael Irvin insisted that if the 92-93 Cowboys played this year's Patriots team, the Boys would have killed the Patriots. I don't know Irvin's argument, but an interesting thing to think about. I am going to try to see if my Madden game for PS2 has the cowboys Classic teams, and if so I want to simulate a game where the classic cowboys play the pats and see the final result. I might even do some matchups and discuss them on the blog later in the week, we will see. The boys did have some superstars, something the Patriots are known to not have, so it would be interesting to see.
One more thing. As the Mavs continue to float along in the middle of the pack in the Western Conference playoff standings, you wonder about the improvements they made this off-season. While this team may be in first place or second at least with Nash, we know that Nash does seem to slow down once the playoffs come, so we will see how that works out with Phoenix this year. For the Mavs additions, Terry and Dampier are looking great. Terry is shooting over 51% from the field, and 46% from behind the arc, Godly numbers. Meanwhile, Dampier seems to be doing a better job fitting into the offense, and when Avery was coaching these past 10 games (we went 7-3 under him), Dampier averaged about 5 more minutes a game, and was averaging around 14 rebounds a game. Dampier and Terry have been solid for the Mavs, and I think Dampier will def. be a benefit for the Mavs come playoff time, as the game becomes more halfcourt sets and defense and rebounding become more vital.
First, I was happy to see a good Super Bowl game, something I feared I might not have seen tonight. I was suprised by a few things however. First, very uncharacteristic of the Pats to play such a sloppy first half. I think this allowed the Eagles to gain some confidence and stay in the game. I think if the Pats would have played against a real quality team that could have taken advantage of the poor Pats first half game, maybe we wouldn't be calling the Patriots a dynasty. Also, I was suprised that the Eagles were able to stay in the game considering McNabb had 1 carry for 0 yards. I would have guessed that McNabb would have had to have used his feet several times to keep this Eagles team in the game. However that wasn't the case, and I was very suprised that Andy Reid didn't have McNabb run more, let alone roll out or bootleg at least making McNabb's legs a threat which the Pats D would have to respect. Also, I want to give a standing ovation to TO. What an amazing game. If he were 100%, I am positive things would have been different. You could tell he wasn't at full strength, as all of his completions were short routes, a couple in which he broke for longer plays, yet none were long routes.
Another thing, I heard from a source that following the game Michael Irvin insisted that if the 92-93 Cowboys played this year's Patriots team, the Boys would have killed the Patriots. I don't know Irvin's argument, but an interesting thing to think about. I am going to try to see if my Madden game for PS2 has the cowboys Classic teams, and if so I want to simulate a game where the classic cowboys play the pats and see the final result. I might even do some matchups and discuss them on the blog later in the week, we will see. The boys did have some superstars, something the Patriots are known to not have, so it would be interesting to see.
One more thing. As the Mavs continue to float along in the middle of the pack in the Western Conference playoff standings, you wonder about the improvements they made this off-season. While this team may be in first place or second at least with Nash, we know that Nash does seem to slow down once the playoffs come, so we will see how that works out with Phoenix this year. For the Mavs additions, Terry and Dampier are looking great. Terry is shooting over 51% from the field, and 46% from behind the arc, Godly numbers. Meanwhile, Dampier seems to be doing a better job fitting into the offense, and when Avery was coaching these past 10 games (we went 7-3 under him), Dampier averaged about 5 more minutes a game, and was averaging around 14 rebounds a game. Dampier and Terry have been solid for the Mavs, and I think Dampier will def. be a benefit for the Mavs come playoff time, as the game becomes more halfcourt sets and defense and rebounding become more vital.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
