The Giants, the Cowboys, and the Redskins (now Commanders)? Man, if they could have made the Super Bowl this year then lost to the Eagles and did a reverse sweep of the NFC East! Now that would be an accomplishment!

Mr. Tact wrote on Feb 10, 2025, 19:20:
"Consistent luck is indistinguishable from skill."

While I believe that is a true statement, I kind of doubt anyone experiences consistent luck on a regular basis. There is some truth in what you are saying, but it applies to all the teams. I also believe in "making your own luck". Sure you can get a lucky break, but often you need to be ready or able to take advantage of that lucky break. It doesn't do you any good have the luck of getting a fumble in the red zone if you can't score after you get it.

I don't remember the exact stat but KC came back from being behind in game like 12 or 13 times this season. Newsflash, that wasn't all luck. In fact, for all I know in half of those games the only reason they were behind is because of bad luck. *shrug*

If you are into football as much as you claim you'd know the four Superbowl Buffalo team is often brought up when people are talk about the history of the Superbowl. But also like I said, in the end it comes down to wins. It's like Billy Beane said (paraphrased), it is all meaningless if you lose the last game of the season.

It's funny, I still remember and think about the Bills and that amazing team and their 4 consecutive trips to the superbowl. I remember the Giants win against them bc I'm a Giants fan. And I remember the Cowboys beat them twice bc Aikman and Emmitt Smith won 3 superbowls and were a dynasty. But I had completely forgotten that the Redskins also beat them. So I guess the losers do sometimes get remembered.

Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2025, 18:32:
I wouldn't bet money on anyone in the history of the NFL doing it twice in a row much less three times. With dynasties, what is often overlooked is that the difference between winning or losing at some point usually comes down to sheer luck. I'm an avid, maniacal hockey fan. With great dynasties of the past like the Edmonton Oilers and the New York Islanders, what the numbers don't bear out are the intangibles. The sheer chance that goes your way. You have to be an utterly exquisite team, but for that kind of dynasty luck has to play a part. Period. No one has EVER done what the Buffalo Bills did. They went to 4 straight Superbowls. 4! No one talks about them however because they were exceedingly unlucky and lost all 4 times. Conversely, KC has been inordinately lucky to a practically comical degree. To the point that it overshadows the talent required to be where they are, at least for the last 2 seasons. They're not bad; they're not average or above average- they're great. But 3-peat great? C'mon...

I was totally expecting them to win for the record. They have been winning with seemingly divine providence for years now. I wouldn't have been very happy about it though.

That was a great Bills Team stocked with some of the best players in the league at the time: Kelly, Thomas, Reed, Lofton, Bruce Smith. I don't know if the stats bear this out, but at the time the NFC was considered a bruising defensive league, and the AFC was a fleet offensive one. And as last Sunday's game showed, defense usually beats offense. Such was the case when the Bills met the Giants and their #1 defense in SB XXV. In fact, the Bills lost to three different NFC teams.

I recall before one of their SB losses, coach Bills Marv Levy had given the team extensive time off before the SB while the opposing team (Cowboys?) had continued practicing hard up until game day. The result was a blowout loss, SB 27 IIRC.

So luck does play a huge part, but so does culture, coaching, and a host of other things.

Yeah I overreacted. Don't worry though; I only do that once in a blue moon. Definitely less than ten times per hour. Surely..

Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2025, 23:45:
As much as I claim? I thought this was a friendly discussion not a contentious pissing contest. Never mind.

Apologies if that was overly aggressive. I am not attempting to make it a pissing contest. My filter goes missing occasionally, there is a reason I have the nickname Mr. Tact IRL.

As much as I claim? I thought this was a friendly discussion not a contentious pissing contest. Never mind.

Regardless of who won, nobody thought the game itself would play out like that. The final score makes it sound like there was a point in this game where Kansas City looked competitive. There wasn't. Through 2 quarters KC just kept taking uppercuts like Philly was Rocky Balboa. Everyone expected KC to come out in the 3rd quarter and make it a game. Because Mahomes is the next Tom Brady! Because Reid is the best coach in the NFL! Because Spag would solve the Philly offense as defensive mastermind that he is! None of that happened, as we all know now.

It's not a true "upset" in my view, the Eagles were always going to be a strong opponent, so them winning the game does not surprise me. It's how the Eagles made a team of superstars and champions that have been living in the bright lights for years over there in KC now look like a junior college team trying to play a team from the SEC. Grats to their fans. Hell of season overall for the Eagles. KC losing will be the headline, but the Eagles winning has a lot great stories in it as well.

*edit: After those first two calls in the first quarter that were just weird, one on each team, the refs became a non-factor. For which I am grateful. It's shitty how often the biggest topic after a NFL or NBA game always seems to be the refs.

This comment was edited on Feb 10, 2025, 23:46.

"Consistent luck is indistinguishable from skill."

While I believe that is a true statement, I kind of doubt anyone experiences consistent luck on a regular basis. There is some truth in what you are saying, but it applies to all the teams. I also believe in "making your own luck". Sure you can get a lucky break, but often you need to be ready or able to take advantage of that lucky break. It doesn't do you any good have the luck of getting a fumble in the red zone if you can't score after you get it.

I don't remember the exact stat but KC came back from being behind in game like 12 or 13 times this season. Newsflash, that wasn't all luck. In fact, for all I know in half of those games the only reason they were behind is because of bad luck. *shrug*

If you are into football as much as you claim you'd know the four Superbowl Buffalo team is often brought up when people are talk about the history of the Superbowl. But also like I said, in the end it comes down to wins. It's like Billy Beane said (paraphrased), it is all meaningless if you lose the last game of the season.

Cutter wrote on Feb 10, 2025, 14:24:
One thing about dynasties as we more forward is people forget the league was smaller way back when and a much smaller talent pool to draw upon which is what made dynasties unusual. Now it's if you have enough money to simply buy a winning team.

This is the exact opposite of reality.

Before free agency, there was no player movement and good teams could stockpile talent. This describes the 60s Pack. Then came free agency and no salary cap, and you could indeed buy a dynasty. This describes the 49ers of the 1980s/early 1990s.

With free agency, a salary cap, and the best teams picking at the bottom of the draft, there's a pull towards the middle. Being able to achieve sustained excellence against that headwind of rules designed for competitive balance is actually much more impressive than it was in the old days.

I wouldn't bet money on anyone in the history of the NFL doing it twice in a row much less three times. With dynasties, what is often overlooked is that the difference between winning or losing at some point usually comes down to sheer luck. I'm an avid, maniacal hockey fan. With great dynasties of the past like the Edmonton Oilers and the New York Islanders, what the numbers don't bear out are the intangibles. The sheer chance that goes your way. You have to be an utterly exquisite team, but for that kind of dynasty luck has to play a part. Period. No one has EVER done what the Buffalo Bills did. They went to 4 straight Superbowls. 4! No one talks about them however because they were exceedingly unlucky and lost all 4 times. Conversely, KC has been inordinately lucky to a practically comical degree. To the point that it overshadows the talent required to be where they are, at least for the last 2 seasons. They're not bad; they're not average or above average- they're great. But 3-peat great? C'mon...

I was totally expecting them to win for the record. They have been winning with seemingly divine providence for years now. I wouldn't have been very happy about it though.

Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2025, 14:03:
I'm not badmouthing the Chiefs. They are good enough to be Super Bowl champs. They're not good enough to do 3 in a row. It's that simple.

Would you have bet money on that prior to the game? None of the teams you mentioned were good enough to do 3 in a row either. The Chiefs got closer than the other teams did, it's that simple.

One thing about dynasties as we more forward is people forget the league was smaller way back when and a much smaller talent pool to draw upon which is what made dynasties unusual. Now it's if you have enough money to simply buy a winning team. Well, coaching does play into a lot as well. You figure all those dynasties were also coached by the greatest/winningest coaches of all time. And while they were technically NFL Championships, Vince Lombardi's Packers did win 3 in a row as well as did Curly Lambeau's Packers.

I'm not badmouthing the Chiefs. They are good enough to be Super Bowl champs. They're not good enough to do 3 in a row. It's that simple.

The plane in question was always going to or coming from Philly, the Black Hole Airport. Not surprised!

Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2025, 05:52:
Oh, and for the cliff notes for people who don't care about sports ball, one team made the other team relinquish the designated leather oblong thing a lot, and performed well enough as limited by the arbitrary rules of the game to best the other team. You're welcome BoP.

Why thank you, Prez! My life is now complete.

Did the Chiefs dominate the league this year? Nope. And I don't follow the NFL closely enough to know if that was due to losing players to trades or injury or because teams figured out the Chiefs game or some other reason. But in sports it generally comes down to wins. Winning is what matters. If you can win when don't have your A game -- whether due to injuries or because the other side is preventing it, finding another way to win is a pretty big thing in sports. Figuring out what to do when the thing you normally do isn't working, is considered a championship trait. That's what champions do, they find a way to win, no matter what. The Chiefs definitely did that this year.

And it is undeniable the Chiefs did something those Steeler, 49er, Patriot, and Cowboy teams never did, they made it to a third consecutive Superbowl. Bad mouthing the Chiefs with generalities simply isn't fair. You bemoan the Chiefs for winning while being average, then praise Eli Manning for being average and beating the Patriots. Which is it? Are these Chiefs the greatest team in NFL history? I don't know, but they definitely deserve to be in the conversation.

(For the record, I am a Cowboy fan)

This comment was edited on Feb 10, 2025, 09:42.

KC has been barely winning games that realistically they had no business winning for 2 seasons now. You can say that's the mark of a champion but it has reached a comical level of consistency now. Like Andy Reed has a voodoo doll of the other teams players or some shit. There was a time when they absolutely were unequivocally the best team in football. Not even close anymore. That you have to look at 7 year-stretches in order to spin the numbers is pretty telling in my view. I'm not much of a straight numbers guy anyway. Eli Manning had amazingly average stats yet is the only quarterback who ever beat Brady twice in the Superbowl as an example. The Rangers won the presidents trophy last season and yet without Shisterkin would have been golfing after round 2 last year as another.

This comment was edited on Feb 10, 2025, 07:02.

Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2025, 00:10:
I'm all cynical piss and vinegar lately (this is me actually feeling better) and I didn't even watch the superbowl- first time since 96 when I was at sea and only the second time I missed it since I started being a football fan in 1976. I guess it was a combination of me being sick to fucking death about hearing about Travis and Taylor, not being interested in a relatively mediocre team doing 3 in a row when legendary teams like the Steelers, the 49ers, the Patriots, and the Cowboys couldn't do it, and being finally fed up with the NFL's corporatization of the game. Any one or even 2 of those probably wouldn't have made me tune out, but all 3 is a shit sauce I didn't feel like tasting.

Over the past seven years, KC has won the most games (90) and scored the most touchdowns (377). Nobody else comes close. I'm pretty sure that's the best seven year stretch by any team in NFL history. So if any team had a chance at a 3-peat, it was KC. So not really mediocre. We'll never see anyone come close to a 3-peat in our lifetimes.

That said, KC really shit the bed tonight.

Oh, and for the cliff notes for people who don't care about sports ball, one team made the other team relinquish the designated leather oblong thing a lot, and performed well enough as limited by the arbitrary rules of the game to best the other team. You're welcome BoP.

I'm all cynical piss and vinegar lately (this is me actually feeling better) and I didn't even watch the superbowl- first time since 96 when I was at sea and only the second time I missed it since I started being a football fan in 1976. I guess it was a combination of me being sick to fucking death about hearing about Travis and Taylor, not being interested in a relatively mediocre team doing 3 in a row when legendary teams like the Steelers, the 49ers, the Patriots, and the Cowboys couldn't do it, and being finally fed up with the NFL's corporatization of the game. Any one or even 2 of those probably wouldn't have made me tune out, but all 3 is a shit sauce I didn't feel like tasting.