Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

I'm almost positive that Baltimore played the Giants in 2001....

Im almost positive STL was double digit favorites in that Super Bowl. I don't think this one is similar as most people view these teams as equal. Many consider Seattle better.

FavreFan wrote:

Im almost positive STL was double digit favorites in that Super Bowl. I don't think this one is similar as most people view these teams as equal. Many consider Seattle better.

I think it might have been 14 points...

...going into that game, the expectation was that there was absolutely no way New England could compete.

...going into that game, the expectation was that there was absolutely no way New England could compete.

I'm almost positive that Baltimore played the Giants in 2001....

lipidquadcab wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Im almost positive STL was double digit favorites in that Super Bowl. I don't think this one is similar as most people view these teams as equal. Many consider Seattle better.

I think it might have been 14 points...

...going into that game, the expectation was that there was absolutely no way New England could compete.

Lipid is correct.

St. Louis -14

Chus wrote:

lipidquadcab wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Im almost positive STL was double digit favorites in that Super Bowl. I don't think this one is similar as most people view these teams as equal. Many consider Seattle better.

I think it might have been 14 points...

...going into that game, the expectation was that there was absolutely no way New England could compete.

Lipid is correct.

St. Louis -14

OK, 14 point dogs and they basically won by beating up the WR's. The theory being that they are not going to call PI on every play in the SB.

I plan on seeing more press coverage than the Seahawks have played all year.

Read PFF, basically Seahwawks play 50% press right now. Looking for more than that this game.

No doubt Manning knows they are coming after him early, he is going to be ready with short passes. Maybe they only rush 4...or 3....blitzing 1?

Either way, one of the better strategy matches in a long long time to watch.

In piss-poor conditions and at home Seattle's vaunted defense gave up over 400 yds to the shitty-road-team Saints. With only 2 good quarters wind-wise to work with, Brees put up over 300 yds and Colston caught 11 passes for 140 yds.

Broncos defense throttled both the Chargers and the Patriots. Holding both Brady and Rivers to under 300 yds passing and both teams to under 100 yds total rushing.

They changed the rules after that. Corners cant beat up receivers anymore

rogers park bryan wrote:

They changed the rules after that. Corners cant beat up receivers anymore

I thought it was changed in '03 or '04 because Marvin Harrison couldn't beat Ty Law off the line and it made Bill Polian sad. It was '01?

The Broncos will score under 28 points only if they choose to play conservatively with the lead and let Wilson beat them.

This is a historically great offense in Denver. They will be fine in 40 degree weather with winds at 10 mph.

The only way I see the Seahawks winning is if they can score about 35 points. I think expecting the Broncos to score in the teens is not a good bet.

The Broncos will score under 28 points only if they choose to play conservatively with the lead and let Wilson beat them.

This is a historically great offense in Denver.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

This post reminds me of Brady sarcastically laughing while saying "He said we're only gonna score 17? Ok." And they didn't even get 17.

Except its not because history had to play by different rules. It has never been easier to pass in the NFL

rogers park bryan wrote:

Except its not because history had to play by different rules. It has never been easier to pass in the NFL

Did they change the rules for this week?

Did they change the meaning of the word "Historically" ?

I love how you're completely discounting Seattle's defense. Should be a fun game to watch.

FavreFan wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

This post reminds me of Brady sarcastically laughing while saying "He said we're only gonna score 17? Ok." And they didn't even get 17.

Good thing I'm not the quarterback of the Broncos then.

rogers park bryan wrote:

Did they change the meaning of the word "Historically" ?

They are a historically great offense. It is because of the rule changes.

rogers park bryan wrote:

I love how you're completely discounting Seattle's defense. Should be a fun game to watch.

I'm not discounting them. They just aren't holding the Broncos to under 28 unless the Broncos are playing with a big lead for most of the game especially if the current weather condition prediction holds true.

Yeah, I guess so. It's just always funny to me when people make these cocksure predictions about what is probably the most unpredictable sport out there. I'm not used to seeing you post like Scorehead.

rogers park bryan wrote:

Did they change the meaning of the word "Historically" ?

They are a historically great offense. It is because of the rule changes.

I love how you're completely discounting Seattle's defense. Should be a fun game to watch.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

Did they change the meaning of the word "Historically" ?

They are a historically great offense. It is because of the rule changes.

rogers park bryan wrote:

I love how you're completely discounting Seattle's defense. Should be a fun game to watch.

That's discounting the Seattle defense Rick!

Author:	bigfan [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:	St. Louis v NE
Super Bowl 2001, I dont remember the line, but I am sure St Louis was a favorite. Maybe a -7? or more. Still working the greatest show on turf, Kurt Warner, Holt, etc. brady had just came on the scene and how St louis was going to light them up. Then New England just beat the hell out of the St Louis WR's. They just shut down "The Great Turf Show". Doesnt this Super Bowl look pretty familiar? and even if it doesnt snow, 20 degree weather doesnt help the aerial attack of Denver Combine that with Seattle trying to control the ground game and just keep Peyton off the field. All that said. I like an UNDER

Author:	FavreFan [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
Im almost positive STL was double digit favorites in that Super Bowl. I don't think this one is similar as most people view these teams as equal. Many consider Seattle better.

Author:	doug - evergreen park [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
I'm almost positive that Baltimore played the Giants in 2001....

Author:	spmack [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
doug - evergreen park wrote: I'm almost positive that Baltimore played the Giants in 2001.... Yep...A 21 year old Spmack had his first SB party in his first apt in 2001. Remember it well. I was a city guy, living in Woodridge to appease the suburban gf. After we broke up, I moved back to the city (South Shore).

Author:	lipidquadcab [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
FavreFan wrote: Im almost positive STL was double digit favorites in that Super Bowl. I don't think this one is similar as most people view these teams as equal. Many consider Seattle better. I think it might have been 14 points... ...going into that game, the expectation was that there was absolutely no way New England could compete.

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

St. Louis v NE https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=84737	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Chus [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
lipidquadcab wrote: FavreFan wrote: Im almost positive STL was double digit favorites in that Super Bowl. I don't think this one is similar as most people view these teams as equal. Many consider Seattle better. I think it might have been 14 points... ...going into that game, the expectation was that there was absolutely no way New England could compete. Lipid is correct. St. Louis -14

Author:	RFDC [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
lipidquadcab wrote: ...going into that game, the expectation was that there was absolutely no way New England could compete. Yep, remember it well. Went to a superbowl party that year of a guy that was a big Ram fan and he was running his mouth all week long leading up to that game about how many points they were going to score. When that kick went through the uprights I was THRILLED and still to this day give him crap about it.

Author:	NearWessSideHussra [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
In piss-poor conditions and at home Seattle's vaunted defense gave up over 400 yds to the shitty-road-team Saints. With only 2 good quarters wind-wise to work with, Brees put up over 300 yds and Colston caught 11 passes for 140 yds. Broncos defense throttled both the Chargers and the Patriots. Holding both Brady and Rivers to under 300 yds passing and both teams to under 100 yds total rushing.

Author:	bigfan [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
doug - evergreen park wrote: I'm almost positive that Baltimore played the Giants in 2001.... then 2000, really wasnt the point....

Author:	bigfan [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
Chus wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: FavreFan wrote: Im almost positive STL was double digit favorites in that Super Bowl. I don't think this one is similar as most people view these teams as equal. Many consider Seattle better. I think it might have been 14 points... ...going into that game, the expectation was that there was absolutely no way New England could compete. Lipid is correct. St. Louis -14 OK, 14 point dogs and they basically won by beating up the WR's. The theory being that they are not going to call PI on every play in the SB. I plan on seeing more press coverage than the Seahawks have played all year. Read PFF, basically Seahwawks play 50% press right now. Looking for more than that this game. No doubt Manning knows they are coming after him early, he is going to be ready with short passes. Maybe they only rush 4...or 3....blitzing 1? Either way, one of the better strategy matches in a long long time to watch.

Author:	Chus [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
bigfan wrote: Chus wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: FavreFan wrote: Im almost positive STL was double digit favorites in that Super Bowl. I don't think this one is similar as most people view these teams as equal. Many consider Seattle better. I think it might have been 14 points... ...going into that game, the expectation was that there was absolutely no way New England could compete. Lipid is correct. St. Louis -14 OK, 14 point dogs and they basically won by beating up the WR's. The theory being that they are not going to call PI on every play in the SB. I plan on seeing more press coverage than the Seahawks have played all year. Read PFF, basically Seahwawks play 50% press right now. Looking for more than that this game. No doubt Manning knows they are coming after him early, he is going to be ready with short passes. Maybe they only rush 4...or 3....blitzing 1? Either way, one of the better strategy matches in a long long time to watch. I agree. I have been saying for ten days that the crossing routes that burned the Pats, and to some extent the Chargers, aren't going to work against a physical secondary, like Seattle's. Denver really hasn't faced a good defense all year. The Chiefs were probably the best, and look what happened when they stopped playing the Jags, Raiders, and Titans. Their D got killed in the second half, and not just by the Broncos.

Author:	bigfan [ Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
Denver WR's reception rate is 50% less when jammed. All of them. No doubt Peyton is going to see it and he will take his shots after some short fakes. But the Seahawks will take the penalty before letting a guy break lose.

Author:	good dolphin [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
NearWessSideHussra wrote: In piss-poor conditions and at home Seattle's vaunted defense gave up over 400 yds to the shitty-road-team Saints. With only 2 good quarters wind-wise to work with, Brees put up over 300 yds and Colston caught 11 passes for 140 yds. Broncos defense throttled both the Chargers and the Patriots. Holding both Brady and Rivers to under 300 yds passing and both teams to under 100 yds total rushing. The Saints are a bad road team is as mythical as the Cub rebuilding plan. I do recognize and agree with your point. The Saints dominated that second half on both sides of the ball. However, they were also dominated in the first half and were lucky to only be down 16. Every trend seems to favor the seahawks.

Author:	reents [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
It was the 2001 season, the 2002 SUper Bowl, yes the Rams were about a 2 touchdown favorite, I had New England on the Money Line that game.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	rogers park bryan [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:34 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
They changed the rules after that. Corners cant beat up receivers anymore

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
rogers park bryan wrote: They changed the rules after that. Corners cant beat up receivers anymore I thought it was changed in '03 or '04 because Marvin Harrison couldn't beat Ty Law off the line and it made Bill Polian sad. It was '01?

Author:	Brick [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
The Broncos will score under 28 points only if they choose to play conservatively with the lead and let Wilson beat them. This is a historically great offense in Denver. They will be fine in 40 degree weather with winds at 10 mph. The only way I see the Seahawks winning is if they can score about 35 points. I think expecting the Broncos to score in the teens is not a good bet.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
Boilermaker Rick wrote: The Broncos will score under 28 points only if they choose to play conservatively with the lead and let Wilson beat them. This is a historically great offense in Denver. They will be fine in 40 degree weather with winds at 10 mph. The only way I see the Seahawks winning is if they can score about 35 points. I think expecting the Broncos to score in the teens is not a good bet. This post reminds me of Brady sarcastically laughing while saying "He said we're only gonna score 17? Ok." And they didn't even get 17.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: The Broncos will score under 28 points only if they choose to play conservatively with the lead and let Wilson beat them. This is a historically great offense in Denver. They will be fine in 40 degree weather with winds at 10 mph. The only way I see the Seahawks winning is if they can score about 35 points. I think expecting the Broncos to score in the teens is not a good bet. This post reminds me of Brady sarcastically laughing while saying "He said we're only gonna score 17? Ok." And they didn't even get 17. Good thing I'm not the quarterback of the Broncos then. rogers park bryan wrote: Except its not because history had to play by different rules. It has never been easier to pass in the NFL Did they change the rules for this week?

Author:	Brick [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
rogers park bryan wrote: Did they change the meaning of the word "Historically" ? They are a historically great offense. It is because of the rule changes. rogers park bryan wrote: I love how you're completely discounting Seattle's defense. Should be a fun game to watch. I'm not discounting them. They just aren't holding the Broncos to under 28 unless the Broncos are playing with a big lead for most of the game especially if the current weather condition prediction holds true.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: The Broncos will score under 28 points only if they choose to play conservatively with the lead and let Wilson beat them. This is a historically great offense in Denver. They will be fine in 40 degree weather with winds at 10 mph. The only way I see the Seahawks winning is if they can score about 35 points. I think expecting the Broncos to score in the teens is not a good bet. This post reminds me of Brady sarcastically laughing while saying "He said we're only gonna score 17? Ok." And they didn't even get 17. Good thing I'm not the quarterback of the Broncos then. Yeah, I guess so. It's just always funny to me when people make these cocksure predictions about what is probably the most unpredictable sport out there. I'm not used to seeing you post like Scorehead.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
Boilermaker Rick wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: Did they change the meaning of the word "Historically" ? They are a historically great offense. It is because of the rule changes. rogers park bryan wrote: I love how you're completely discounting Seattle's defense. Should be a fun game to watch. I'm not discounting them. They just aren't holding the Broncos to under 28 unless the Broncos are playing with a big lead for most of the game especially if the current weather condition prediction holds true. That's discounting the Seattle defense Rick!

Author:	Brick [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
FavreFan wrote: Yeah, I guess so. It's just always funny to me when people make these cocksure predictions about what is probably the most unpredictable sport out there. I'm not used to seeing you post like Scorehead. It's simply what I think will happen. I don't understand why a prediction is such a big deal.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:51 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE
FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: Did they change the meaning of the word "Historically" ? They are a historically great offense. It is because of the rule changes. rogers park bryan wrote: I love how you're completely discounting Seattle's defense. Should be a fun game to watch. I'm not discounting them. They just aren't holding the Broncos to under 28 unless the Broncos are playing with a big lead for most of the game especially if the current weather condition prediction holds true. That's discounting the Seattle defense Rick! How many points do you think the Broncos will score? I don't think it's an insult to the defense to think a historically great offense will score at least 10 points below their average in a game.

Author:	NearWessSideHussra [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: St. Louis v NE