It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 3:48 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 40983
Location: Chicago
pizza_Place: Lou Malanati's
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

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
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.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:26 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 pm
Posts: 28634
Location: computer
pizza_Place: Salerno's
I'm almost positive that Baltimore played the Giants in 2001....

_________________
@audioidkid
spaulding wrote:
Also if you fuck someone like they are a millionaire they might go try to be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:26 pm
Posts: 31155
Location: West Side
pizza_Place: Paisan's in Cicero
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).

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
I rarely troll.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
Posts: 17678
Location: The Leviathan
pizza_Place: Frozen
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
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

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57232
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.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:31 pm
Posts: 6513
pizza_Place: sit down
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 40983
Location: Chicago
pizza_Place: Lou Malanati's
doug - evergreen park wrote:
I'm almost positive that Baltimore played the Giants in 2001....


then 2000, really wasnt the point....

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 40983
Location: Chicago
pizza_Place: Lou Malanati's
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.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
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.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 40983
Location: Chicago
pizza_Place: Lou Malanati's
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.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82220
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.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 2:46 pm
Posts: 6251
pizza_Place: Pizza Hut
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
They changed the rules after that. Corners cant beat up receivers anymore


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
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?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
FavreFan wrote:
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?

I didnt mean to imply right after that. I just remember that Super Bowl being talked about whenever they changed it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
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.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
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.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
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?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
And they're going to play conservatively because Peyton learned a while ago that track meets dont work out well for him in championship games.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
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.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
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.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
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.

:lol: :lol:

That's discounting the Seattle defense Rick!

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
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.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
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.

Their stats are historically great. But anyone who watches football knows they are not close to historically great.

rogers park bryan wrote:
I love how you're completely discounting Seattle's defense. Should be a fun game to watch.
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
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 IS discounting them. They are a historically great defense and you think the Broncos are getting 28 no matter what?

I dont know why youre so focused on 28, especially since the Bronocs havent put up 28 yet in the playoffs. Maybe they arent as good against good defense?


Last edited by rogers park bryan on Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92041
Location: To the left of my post
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.

:lol: :lol:

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.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: St. Louis v NE
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:31 pm
Posts: 6513
pizza_Place: sit down
Image

Image


Last edited by NearWessSideHussra on Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group