Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-02-2006, 03:23 PM
Hal Briston is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A nice chunk o' NJ
Posts: 14,191

Early Super Bowl Pick Time 3!


Ok folks, year #3 for this one. We've got our 12 playoff teams, now let's see who can pick the Super Bowl a month ahead of time.

Last year it was Uncommon Sense, whose pick of the Patriots over the Eagles, 27-20 was only two points off the correct total. Damn fine job there.

So let's see what'cha got. We want the teams making it to big game, and the final score.

This year, I'll be throwing caution to the wind and picking with my heart instead of my head. I'll take the Manning Bowl matchup that every sportswriter is drooling to see: Giants over the Colts, 34-27.

As always, just in case you don't follow football but still wanna play along, just pick an AFC team, an NFC team, and a couple of numbers that sound vaguely football-scorish.

AFC Teams:
New England Patriots, Jacksonville Jaguars, Pittsburgh Steelers, Cincinnati Bengals, Indianapolis Colts, Denver Broncos

NFC Teams:
Washington Redskins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Carolina Panthers, New York Giants, Chicago Bears, Seattle Seahawks
  #2  
Old 01-02-2006, 03:24 PM
Mr. Blue Sky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Up there, waiting
Posts: 17,203
Colts - 39
Seahawks - 27
  #3  
Old 01-02-2006, 03:54 PM
Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 14,153
Steelers 16, Seattle 10 in OT. The Bus scores the last touchdown of his career to win the game and gets game MVP.
  #4  
Old 01-02-2006, 05:13 PM
St. Urho is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: CO
Posts: 1,572
Denver 27 Chicago 13.
  #5  
Old 01-02-2006, 05:27 PM
soulmurk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,112
Colts 32
Seadogs 20
  #6  
Old 01-02-2006, 05:31 PM
Ins&Outs&What-have-yous is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kentuckiana
Posts: 718
Patriots 24
Bears 16

I would not prefler to have this to happen, however.
  #7  
Old 01-02-2006, 05:38 PM
An Arky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,333
New England 30
Seattle 17

Don't want that, either.

Mad props to the Pats for letting Flutie drop kick that extra point, though.
  #8  
Old 01-02-2006, 06:39 PM
Carm6773 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In a handbasket
Posts: 664

Going with my heart here


Tampa Bay Bucs over the Indianapolis Colts 13-10 in OT. There will be a fitting tribute to James Dungy somehow.
__________________
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. --Mark Twain
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
  #9  
Old 01-02-2006, 07:59 PM
vinniepaz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 507
Seahawks over Colts 35-32
  #10  
Old 01-02-2006, 10:13 PM
TwoOnSunday is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: In a dry heat...FINALLY!
Posts: 242
I would LOVE to see a Bears-Bengals Super Bowl. Bears - 2,412 Bengals - 0

In reality, it will probably be more like Colts - 24 Bears - 10.
  #11  
Old 01-02-2006, 10:26 PM
Kiros is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Greater Boston
Posts: 2,673
Pats 23
Bears 20
  #12  
Old 01-02-2006, 10:38 PM
Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lair
Posts: 20,890
Colts 17, Bears 7
  #13  
Old 01-02-2006, 10:46 PM
duffer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Watertown, WI
Posts: 7,427
Bears 27 - Beangals 24.

This is a lock as the Bears will always stick it to a Packer's fan given the chance. The bastards let Edinger go to sign with the Queens just to make sure we lost those games.
  #14  
Old 01-02-2006, 11:27 PM
Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 17,248
I'm amazed at the number of people picking the Bears. I really am! God I hope you're all right, I'd be happy just to see them make an appearance. In my estimation it all comes down to match-ups in the NFC.

AFC - Colts

NFC - The heart says Bears, the head says it's the winner of Seattle/Washington.

Final Score: Bears 20 - Colts 16

Stop by the March to Super Bowl XXXX thread and elaborate on your thoughts!
  #15  
Old 01-03-2006, 07:03 AM
Who_me? is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,065
Carolina 24
Pats 21
  #16  
Old 01-03-2006, 08:42 AM
robz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 198
The dream pick for me would be PATS over the Bears 42-10
  #17  
Old 01-03-2006, 08:53 AM
Winston Smith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Posts: 5,022
Patriots20

Seahawks17
  #18  
Old 01-03-2006, 08:54 AM
asterion is offline
2012 SDMB NFL Salary Cap Champ
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,686
Broncos over the Giants, 24-17.
  #19  
Old 01-03-2006, 09:16 AM
Mycroft Holmes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by robz
The dream pick for me would be PATS over the Bears 42-10
Shouldn't that be 46-10? That was the correct winning score for the Bears in Superbowl XX against the Pats. It's amazing how much it can still hurt after 20 years isn't it? I'm a Skins fan and I'm still angry about Super Bowl XVIII (38-9 for the Raiders) and that damn rocket screen.

My prediction (going with my heart instead of my brains here):

Redksins 27 - Patriots 21
  #20  
Old 01-03-2006, 09:23 AM
Ponder Stibbons's Avatar
Ponder Stibbons is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 5,913
I'm going to go with a rematch, on the theory they've been there before and done that.

Pats 35 - Panthers 32
  #21  
Old 01-03-2006, 02:29 PM
VarlosZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,552
Well, my preseason pick was Colts over Panthers. I would stick with that for the sake of consistency, but the Panthers are playing my Giants this Sunday (and the Panthers are probably the fourth best team in the conference, so I'll have to change it.

I'm not that impressed with Seattle (weak schedule, average defense). Carolina and (sigh) New York are too inconsistent. Washington and Tampa aren't talented enough. I guess that leaves Chicago, which, with the mediocre Rex Grossman at QB, is every bit as good as the 2000 Ravens team that won the Super Bowl.

There are lots of excellent teams in the AFC, but don't kid yourself: the Colts are clearly the best of the bunch. I think they'll cruise through the playoffs.

Colts 31, Bears 10.
  #22  
Old 01-03-2006, 03:26 PM
VarlosZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,552
Well, my preseason pick was Colts over Panthers. I would stick with that for the sake of consistency, but the Panthers are playing my Giants this Sunday (and the Panthers are probably the fourth best team in the conference), so I'll have to change it.

I'm not that impressed with Seattle (weak schedule, average defense). Carolina and (sigh) New York are too inconsistent. Washington and Tampa aren't talented enough. I guess that leaves Chicago, which, with the mediocre Rex Grossman at QB, is every bit as good as the 2000 Ravens team that won the Super Bowl.

There are lots of excellent teams in the AFC, but don't kid yourself: the Colts are clearly the best of the bunch. I think they'll cruise through the playoffs.

Colts 31, Bears 10.
  #23  
Old 01-03-2006, 10:12 PM
Trillionaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 312
Patriots 20
Bears 17
  #24  
Old 01-03-2006, 10:21 PM
Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Colts 34
Bears 17
  #25  
Old 01-03-2006, 10:26 PM
bouv is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: VT
Posts: 12,872
Patriots 24
Bears 17
  #26  
Old 01-03-2006, 10:29 PM
AncientHumanoid's Avatar
AncientHumanoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Quantum foam
Posts: 24,453
In a match up of former divisional neighbours...


BRONCOS - 38

SEADOGS - 31





;j
  #27  
Old 01-04-2006, 01:57 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 13,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoClueBoy
In a match up of former divisional neighbours...
That's a great storyline I hadn't thought of.

I think the Giants hold the clear edge in number of potential Superbowl storylines, not necessarily this year but in general:

vs Indianapolis: Peyton againt Eli.
vs San Diego: Eli vs the city he spurned.
vs New York Jets: cross town rivals
vs Pittsburgh: Fellow first rounders from the same class, Eli vs Ben.

Not to mention the "rematch" storylines of the Broncos and Billies.

Anyway, my prediction is biased but here goes:

Giants - 30
Broncos - 24

In a mirror image of the regular season affair, the Broncos get the ball with a chance to win, but lose after a sack-fumble turnover on downs just before the final two minute warning. Broncos get one final punt return with 10 seconds left, but their hail mary gets picked off. This is notable because it will be the first interception Plummer throws in the playoffs.
  #28  
Old 01-04-2006, 08:40 AM
Stringer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Al Capone's Vault
Posts: 1,396
Colts - 31
Bears - 13
  #29  
Old 01-04-2006, 11:31 AM
VarlosZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by VarlosZ
Colts - 31
Bears - 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by micahjn
Colts - 31
Bears - 13
Oh, come on! This is like that Price is Right tactic, where the last guy bids $1 more than the higest bid. Can I change my guess to Colts 31, Bears 14?


As an aside, sorry about that bizarre double post (there's almost an hour between the two of them). I hit "Submit Reply," saw it was taking a long time, copied the text of the post, then went off to do real life stuff. When I came back, I checked to see if the post had gone through, and my memory swears that it wasn't there. I guess my memory sucks. Sorry.
  #30  
Old 01-04-2006, 12:15 PM
Enginerd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by VarlosZ
I guess that leaves Chicago, which, with the mediocre Rex Grossman at QB, is every bit as good as the 2000 Ravens team that won the Super Bowl.
Not even close. Sure, the Ravens had Dilfer at QB, but they also had (pre-prison) Jamal Lewis and Priest Holmes sharing carries and Shannon Sharpe at TE. The Bears have a 1300 yard rusher in Thomas Jones, but not much else on that side of the ball. The Bears racked up 4,300 yards of total offense and 260 points in the regular season; the Ravens put up 1,000 more yards and 73 more points. The Ravens had a better defense as well. [/Ravens fan rant]

'Skins 30, Pats 27
  #31  
Old 01-04-2006, 12:40 PM
VarlosZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enginerd
Quote:
I guess that leaves Chicago, which, with the mediocre Rex Grossman at QB, is every bit as good as the 2000 Ravens team that won the Super Bowl.
Not even close. Sure, the Ravens had Dilfer at QB, but they also had (pre-prison) Jamal Lewis and Priest Holmes sharing carries and Shannon Sharpe at TE. The Bears have a 1300 yard rusher in Thomas Jones, but not much else on that side of the ball.
Muhsin Muhammed > Shannon Sharpe (2000 version) + good backup RB.

Quote:
The Bears racked up 4,300 yards of total offense and 260 points in the regular season; the Ravens put up 1,000 more yards and 73 more points.
See Orton, Kyle. The Bears went 9-4 with the worst starting QB in the league (2nd worst if you count Alex Smith).

Quote:
The Ravens had a better defense as well. [/Ravens fan rant]
Before the meaningless week 17 loss in which the Bears pulled their defensive starters, their defensive numbers compared favorably with those of the 2000 Ravens. This is even more impressive when you consider that they played most of the year with a much worse offense than that Ravens team, which means that opposing offenses were constantly starting with short fields.
  #32  
Old 01-04-2006, 12:43 PM
lno is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: In the state of denial
Posts: 4,836
Redskins over Bengals, 21-10.

...solely because no one else is picking Washington or Cincinnati.
  #33  
Old 01-04-2006, 12:56 PM
Enginerd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by VarlosZ
Muhsin Muhammed > Shannon Sharpe (2000 version) + good backup RB.
2005 Muhammed: 750 yards on 64 catches with 4 TDs.
2000 Sharpe: 810 yards on 67 catches with 5 TDs.
Muhammed wasn't better than Sharpe by himself, let alone Sharpe and Holmes. He was a little better than Qadry Ismail.

Quote:
Before the meaningless week 17 loss in which the Bears pulled their defensive starters, their defensive numbers compared favorably with those of the 2000 Ravens. This is even more impressive when you consider that they played most of the year with a much worse offense than that Ravens team, which means that opposing offenses were constantly starting with short fields.
Do I get to discount the yards and 20 points given up in the Ravens meaningless week 17 victory over the Jets, or does that only work for the Bears?

I'm not saying the Bears are a bad team, and there are valid comparisons to be drawn between the 2005 Bears and the 2000 Ravens. But "every bit as good" isn't one of them.
  #34  
Old 01-04-2006, 02:53 PM
VarlosZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enginerd
2005 Muhammed: 750 yards on 64 catches with 4 TDs.
2000 Sharpe: 810 yards on 67 catches with 5 TDs.
Muhammed wasn't better than Sharpe by himself, let alone Sharpe and Holmes. He was a little better than Qadry Ismail.
Gross production is a poor indicator of quality, as it's so dependent on context and opportunity. Again, this is the Orton Effect rearing it's head. Or do you think that Eddie Kennison (1102 yds, QB = Trent Green) is a lot better than Laveranues Coles (845 yds, QB = Brooks Bolinger)?

Quote:
Do I get to discount the yards and 20 points given up in the Ravens meaningless week 17 victory over the Jets, or does that only work for the Bears?
Probably, to one extent or another -- how many defensive starters played in that game, and for how long? For the Bears, the six defensive starters that suited up vacated the field after the 1st Quarter.

Quote:
I'm not saying the Bears are a bad team, and there are valid comparisons to be drawn between the 2005 Bears and the 2000 Ravens. But "every bit as good" isn't one of them.
Ok, "every bit as good" is a stretch, because we don't know how good the offense will be with Grossman. My hunch is that they're good enough to justify the statement, but with such a small sample size, there's no way to know for sure.
  #35  
Old 01-04-2006, 03:25 PM
Enginerd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by VarlosZ
Gross production is a poor indicator of quality, as it's so dependent on context and opportunity. Again, this is the Orton Effect rearing it's head. Or do you think that Eddie Kennison (1102 yds, QB = Trent Green) is a lot better than Laveranues Coles (845 yds, QB = Brooks Bolinger)?
While that's true when you're comparing individual players, it's not a bad way to measure how good a team is. A QB is as good as his receivers (offensive line, playcalls, etc) and vice versa. So yeah, I'd rather have Kennison and Green than Coles and Bollinger, and I'd rather have 2000 Sharpe and Dilfer than 2005 Muhammed and Orton (or Grossman).

I'm not convinced that Grossman is that much better than Orton. They completed passes at about the same rate (51.3% vs. 51.6%), and both threw fewer touchdowns than picks. Grossman's average yards per pass is a good bit higher than Orton's, but that's a pretty small sample (39 attempts) to draw any conclusions from. If I were Lovie Smith, I'd be scared to death to put Grossman, who's thrown 195 passes in three years, at the top of my depth chart. Orton's not that much better an option, but I'd stick with the guy who got me there. I don't think the Bears will be significantly better with Grossman under center than they have been all season, and they could be a lot worse.

Quote:
Ok, "every bit as good" is a stretch, because we don't know how good the offense will be with Grossman. My hunch is that they're good enough to justify the statement, but with such a small sample size, there's no way to know for sure.
That's why they play the games.
  #36  
Old 01-04-2006, 03:35 PM
VarlosZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,552
Quote:
Orton's not that much better an option, but I'd stick with the guy who got me there. I don't think the Bears will be significantly better with Grossman under center than they have been all season, and they could be a lot worse.
Strongly disagree. Orton was not the guy that got them there; he was the guy who didn't get in the way too much. He was the worst regular starting QB in the league; the odds that Grossman will be worse are very small.
  #37  
Old 01-04-2006, 04:15 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,782
My pick:

Indianapolis 37 Seattle 19

My wish:

Pittsburgh 21 New York 0
  #38  
Old 01-04-2006, 05:41 PM
Mullinator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Georgia
Posts: 4,158
Colts 31 - Bears 10
  #39  
Old 01-04-2006, 06:32 PM
Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Denver 27, Tampa Bay 19
  #40  
Old 01-04-2006, 06:53 PM
Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 17,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enginerd
I'm not convinced that Grossman is that much better than Orton. They completed passes at about the same rate (51.3% vs. 51.6%), and both threw fewer touchdowns than picks. Grossman's average yards per pass is a good bit higher than Orton's, but that's a pretty small sample (39 attempts) to draw any conclusions from. If I were Lovie Smith, I'd be scared to death to put Grossman, who's thrown 195 passes in three years, at the top of my depth chart. Orton's not that much better an option, but I'd stick with the guy who got me there. I don't think the Bears will be significantly better with Grossman under center than they have been all season, and they could be a lot worse.
Spoken like someone who didn't watch the games. Grossman was so much better than Orton in his starts it can't be adequately described. The stats are't a good indicator, but just about everyone who watched the game and/or studied the film will agree that the Bears offense is pretty damn dangerous with Grossman and a healthy Berrian.

I agree that the Ravens defense was a notch better than the Bears, but it's a small notch. The Bears were missing Hillenmeyer and Mike Brown, two very critical guys for their defense for the final 4 games. Comparing season stats is a dicey proposition.

The Bears are a more unkown quantity because of the injuries they played with all year. I find it impossible for someone who watched Grossman play to not think they have a much higher ceiling than the Dilfer/Lewis/Sharpe Ravens offense. It could fall apart for sure, but any comparison to the Orton led offense is complete BS.
  #41  
Old 01-05-2006, 12:31 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 13,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient
The Bears are a more unkown quantity because of the injuries they played with all year. I find it impossible for someone who watched Grossman play to not think they have a much higher ceiling than the Dilfer/Lewis/Sharpe Ravens offense. It could fall apart for sure, but any comparison to the Orton led offense is complete BS.
Spoken like somebody who didn't watch that Superbowl.

Do you remember how the Ravens won? Special teams cancelled out. (Back to back TDs...ugh.) Scary Kerry threw four picks, yes.

But what was working on the Ravens offense? The vertical passing game. They rained hot vertical death onto the previously pretty good Giants secondary. (This was before Sehorn sucked, remember.)

I'll agree 100% that Grossman brings the vertical threat in a way that Orton could never dream of, but in the Superbowl the Ravens showcased impressive offensive production. Grossman has yet to do that.

Then again, Dilfer had yet to do that until the Superbowl, so I could really go either way on the debate.
  #42  
Old 01-05-2006, 12:46 AM
AncientHumanoid's Avatar
AncientHumanoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Quantum foam
Posts: 24,453
Maybe they can trade for Vince Young!




Concerning Da Bearz and their point production... Sure, they can hang with anyone (just about) with that speedy, big D, but what happens when their lackluster O meets a good D? Ya gotta score more points that the other guys. The Bears have not been a high scoring team this this year. Not compared to teams like Denver (AFC), Indy (AFC), the Seadogs (NFC), yeah even Washington (NFC) who all have the weapons to fairly consistantly explode with offensive performance. Even the Giants (possible match up for Bears' Week 2 game) have a potential for high scores (Tiki, Toomer, Jeremy, Plax). A few slips by the D and the O is left playing a desparate struggle of catch up. I see the Bears falling in their first game, regardless of who they play. Sorry.
  #43  
Old 01-08-2006, 10:12 PM
Hal Briston is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A nice chunk o' NJ
Posts: 14,191
Seven players eliminated, 25 players remain. Here's a breakdown of who's still in the game:

Mr. Blue Sky - Colts 39, Seahawks 27
Airman Doors, USAF - Steelers 16, Seahawks 10
St. Urho - Broncos 27, Bears 13
soulmurk - Colts 32, Seahawks 20
ArchitectChore - Patriots 24, Bears 16
An Arky - Patriots 30, Seahawks 17
vinniepaz - Seahawks 35, Colts 32
TwoOnSunday - Colts 24, Bears 10
Kiros - Patriots 23, Bears 20
Evil Captor - Colts 17, Bears 7
Omniscient - Bears 20, Colts 16
Who_me? - Panthers 24, Patriots 21
robz - Patriots 42, Bears 10
Winston Smith - Patriots 20, Seahawks 17
Mycroft Holmes - Redskins 27, Patriots 21
Ponder Stibbons - Patriots 35, Panthers 32
VarlosZ - Colts 31, Bears 10
Trillionaire - Patriots 20, Bears 17
Diogenes the Cynic - Colts 34, Bears 17
bouv - Patriots 24, Bears 17
NoClueBoy - Broncos 38, Seahawks 31
micahjn - Colts 31, Bears 13
Enginerd - Redskins 30, Patriots 27
Jackknifed Juggernaut - Colts 37, Seahawks 19
Mullinator - Colts 31, Bears 10

And the six players who sucked it up opening weekend:

Hal Briston - Giants 34, Colts 27
Carm6773 - Buccaneers 13, Colts 10
asterion - Broncos 24, Giants 17
Ellis Dee - Giants 30, Broncos 24
lno - Redskins 21, Bengals 10
Frank - Broncos 27, Buccaneers 19
duffer - Bears 27, Bengals 24
  #44  
Old 01-08-2006, 10:46 PM
asterion is offline
2012 SDMB NFL Salary Cap Champ
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,686
Hey, now, it's not my fault the Giants managed to lose to a wildcard. (Three road teams winning--is that a record?)
  #45  
Old 01-16-2006, 09:21 AM
Hal Briston is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A nice chunk o' NJ
Posts: 14,191
At this point two years ago, we had seven players remaining.

Last year, there were twelve players left.

Thanks to some major upsets yesterday, we've got a whopping three players who survived the Divisionals this year:

NoClueBoy - Broncos 38, Seahawks 31
Airman Doors, USAF - Steelers 16, Seahawks 10
St. Urho - Broncos 27, Bears 13


The ironic thing is that I'm starting to look at the Panthers as possibly having the best shot.
  #46  
Old 01-16-2006, 09:25 AM
Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 14,153
Haha. All you haters are eating crow today. How does it taste?
  #47  
Old 01-16-2006, 09:32 AM
Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 17,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Briston
At this point two years ago, we had seven players remaining.

Last year, there were twelve players left.

Thanks to some major upsets yesterday, we've got a whopping three players who survived the Divisionals this year:

NoClueBoy - Broncos 38, Seahawks 31
Airman Doors, USAF - Steelers 16, Seahawks 10
St. Urho - Broncos 27, Bears 13


The ironic thing is that I'm starting to look at the Panthers as possibly having the best shot.
Um, as much as I wish it were so.......
  #48  
Old 01-16-2006, 09:35 AM
asterion is offline
2012 SDMB NFL Salary Cap Champ
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Briston
At this point two years ago, we had seven players remaining.

Last year, there were twelve players left.

Thanks to some major upsets yesterday, we've got a whopping three players who survived the Divisionals this year:

NoClueBoy - Broncos 38, Seahawks 31
Airman Doors, USAF - Steelers 16, Seahawks 10
St. Urho - Broncos 27, Bears 13


The ironic thing is that I'm starting to look at the Panthers as possibly having the best shot.
Nah, we've got two. NoClueBoy and Airman. Bears are out. I'm now imagining a Panthers upset to have no winner this year. Otherwise, either NoClueBoy or Airman wins by default.
  #49  
Old 01-16-2006, 10:16 AM
Plynck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Duchy of Grand Fenwick
Posts: 2,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Haha. All you haters are eating crow today. How does it taste?
Rather like my foot. Exactly like my foot, in fact...
Quote:
Originally Posted by plynck
Steelers march to the Superbowl? In your DREAMS, fella. The Pats will pound them into the ground like a tentstake!
Edited somewhat for this forum (and also to preserve whatever shreds of dignity I may still possess).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Opinions vary, but I have the facts.
You do indeed. I bow to you.
  #50  
Old 01-16-2006, 10:25 AM
Hal Briston is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A nice chunk o' NJ
Posts: 14,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Briston
St. Urho - Broncos 27, Bears 13
And I, of course, am an idiot.

Consider me corrected -- two players remain.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017