My feelings on the matter are tempered. I thought the defensive scheme was great, and I thought the players made every play they had to, and then some. But, it’s hard to get excited about how well the defense played when the offense struggled so badly.
As far as whether it was a matter of the Bucs losing or the Skins winning, I’d say the Skins won it. Washington’s offense was dreadful (though I still maintain that not enough credit is given to the Buc’s D), but their defense stepped up and carried the team. Some might say that Tampa handed the game to Washington with all the turnovers, but even still, the Skin’s defense had to hold them for 3 full quarters. They made several key stops (stuffing Alstott on 3rd and 1, and then reading the play action on 4th and 1 perfectly; as well as holding the Bucs off after that terrible punt in the fourth quarter), and kept Simms and Co. from tieing it up.
Just because Brunell couldn’t hit the ground if he’d had three chances (anyone else think his knee was still bothering him, despite his claims to the contrary?) and the offense wasn’t moving the ball against a very respectable defense, doesn’t mean that it was the Buc’s game to lose. If the game had gone differently, say instead of Arrington’s interception, the Bucs had marched downfield and put up 7, who’s to say how either team would have responded? That could very well have been the spark that led to Tampa putting up 42, or for Moss to get motivated and catch 3 TD’s.
I’m pretty pissed off at the pass interference against Moss not being called on that last pass, but even if it had been caught they’d have needed to recover an onside kick AND rely on Hall to actually make a long kick, neither of which were all that likely.
Anyways, lets see. Brady INT in the endzone, Troy Brown fumble, Branch dropped pass, Faulk fumble, Viniateri missed FG…the big names were the ones who lost the game for certain. Still, the defense played great. Too bad they didn’t get any help.
An owner’s football philosophy can permeate the entire organization, and the effects can easily last decades.
The playoffs are in January, so you can expect weather to play a reasonably consistent factor from decade to decade.
An organization’s history is hard to shake. Consider the Herculean task it was to elevate the Bungles back into the Bengals. Surely there was little resemblance between the 93 Bungles and the 2001 Bungles, right? Actually not; they were remarkably similar. Once the aura of losing infects a franchise, it can be tough to root out. This can certainly span decades. (For example, the Seahawks just got their first playoff win in how long?)
Even with 100% roster turnover, franchises are all too often doomed to repeat their history until the pattern of losing or winning is forcibly altered. (As the Patriots did in 2001, and the 49ers did in 2003.)
I think you’re over-estimating things. While there’s a certain element of consistency within a franchise and a poor collection of executives can undermine a couple rosters of players, history isn’t an infection that must be cured and neither a tradition of losing or winning is especially persistant. Personally I think it’s mostly a matter of perception componded by the media seeking compelling storylines.
The Bengals were poorly managed for a decade or more, but turning that around was simply a matter of hiring Marvin Lewis and drafting quality players like Rudi Johnson, Carson Palmer and Chad Johnson. Those players are no more influenced by the Klingler Bengals than they were by the Esiason Bengals.
The only direct way in which a franchise is effected by a tradition of winning or losing is in it’s ability to lure quality free agents. This is most certainly a sizable factor, however it’s pretty quick to change with the addition of good facilities, good coaches and good management.
The Patriots were a punchline for years until Parcells and Belichick arrived on the scene. The Niners had the greatest winning tradition in all of football and in the blink of an eye they were a perennial doormat after one instance of poor cap management. Neither team was really helped or hurt by their traditions.
The Bears are not going to be impacted by the fact they’ve been bad for years. They have different personel, a different coach, different stadium and totally new management from those lowly teams of the 90s. If they lose this weekend it’s due to the fact that they were beaten by the other team not due to the weight of their past failures.
The few cases where long term history is worth discussion is with a team like the Steelers who have a longstanding system, management, veteran players and the longest tenured coach in the league. What they’ve done over the last decade is relevant because theres still quite a lot of similarity.
If the “moribund franchise” argument had any predictive ability you’d have to proclaim the Rams, Pats, Broncos, Bucs first titles over the last decade defy logic. For the entire Super Bowl era those teams each had about as embarrssing a history of losing as possible yet they won the whole thing. And since those account for 4 of the last 8 titles I don’t think they stand as an exception to the rule.
In the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s you could make an argument that franchises with a history of success were the odds on favorite because organizations were much more stable and consistent from both a player and management perspective. Today, it doesn’t apply at all. Anything further back than about 3 years is almost totally irrelevant except in the rarest of cases.
Someone probably pointed this out, but you added an extra X. It’s Super Bowl XXX, and from my local papers, Detroit is nowhere NEAR being able to accomdate it.
I hope I’m not being whooshed here, but you’re mistaken I’m afraid. It’s Super Bowl 40, which is correctly written as Super Bowl XL. I prefer the XXXX style in order to pay homage to the football gods who allowed the Bears to win Super Bowl XX.
Super Bowl XXX however is a wonderful mindset when you consider what Windsor is famous for!
Nope, it’s Superbowl XL. Or, as the OP put it, XXXX in an attempt to commemerate the Bears winning Superbowl XX. Superbowl XXX was played back in 1996 when the Cowboys beat the Steelers.
You are completely right. IT is XL, I wasn’t used to the XXXX. I was just remembering that it was a euphamism (check the spelling on that I’m pretty hammered right now) for something cool. So it’s Super Bowl Extra Large, and in my drunken state, I didn’t pick up on that. Either way, when I was 19 I enjoyed going to Windsor and drinking legally. I heard a rumor that you need a passport to drink their now? Is it true? Not that it matters cuz I’m of age by now, but that sucks. There goes 90% of your tourism…
Okay, several hours of drinking away my sorrows later, I am back to offer some small thoughts.
I really want to bitch about two calls in particular (the pass interference call which may have been the most egregiously bad penalty I have seen in my lifetime (not having been alive for the Sugar Bear Hamilton roughing-the-passer call!), between the fact that it was offensive if anything and the time at which the flag came in; and the fumble-out-of-the-end zone, which I can deal with because replays were clearly inconclusive*). Unfortunately, I can’t bitch about the calls, because the Patriots did two things you absolutely cannot do in the playoffs: turned the ball over and failed to score seven when they had the chance. The Patriots undoubtedly deserved to lose tonight.
That said: as much as this can be said about a team that just won a divisional round game by two touchdowns, the Broncos are a good deal worse than I thought they were. For the most part, they didn’t particularly do anything to force those turnovers; they were all a direct result of New England being careless with the ball. Outside of the points-off-turnovers, the Denver offense was absolutely abysmal, despite being on their home field. No one other than Rod Smith even really showed flashes. The Denver defense was extremely beatable, as long as you didn’t physically hand them the football. If I were a Broncos fan, I’d be praying to my deity of choice REALLY hard tonight for a Pitt win tomorrow - because if the AFC championship is Denver at Indy, we may well be looking at another one of those “Indy doesn’t punt” games that ends up about 48-14 that we have seen the last couple of years when these teams have met.
As for the NFC game, well, the Redskins blew it. That game was very winnable - no one on the Seattle offense other than Darrell Jackson really showed up to play. Even before Alexander got hurt they were stopping the run. There were a couple flashes where the Redskins offense clicked, but other than the one TD drive, it never came together for long enough for them to win. Unfortunately, the incompetence of the Skins offense makes it harder for me to judge the Seattle D; they looked pretty good today, but they only really had to cover Cooley and Moss, as no one else (including Portis) was really a threat for most of the game. I will probably be extremely tempted to take whomever wins tomorrow’s game to beat Seattle, regardless of Alexander’s status.
*question on that one - does “over the pylon” count as “out of the end zone” the same way it would count as “in the end zone for a touchdown”? Because I’d say the ball was pretty “over the pylon” - like I said, though, replays were clearly inconclusive.
I agree with you for the most part. The Broncos offense was pretty poor, totally manhandled by the Pats defense. I disagree with the Bronco defense though. They were playing on par with the Pats. Neither offense could do anything for the first 3 quarters. Towards the end of the game the Pats were able to move the ball between the 20s but they were totally stymied in the redzone. That credit goes to the Broncos, especially since the Pats are a team who’s been generally good at converting this season. Corey Dillon should be ashamed of himself. He wasn’t playing like he wanted it at all, totally quitting on some short yardage situations. I think the Broncos will be in trouble against any of the other teams remaining due to their stout defenses and strong running attacks.
I’m 98% certain that “over the pylon” is considered a touchback. I agree that the call on the field if I were a Ref would have been Pats ball. Still, coming of a 100 yard INT return from the other endzone it’s tough to get too huffy about a close call. Hell of an effort by Watson though, just for the drama of it I’d have loved to see that get them the ball back.
So far this weekend, I’m 1-1 straight up, and 0-2 ATS. If Hall had been able to hit that 37-yard attempt, I’d be 1-1 both ways, but such is life. The 'Skins shoulda been going for the TD anyway; they couldn’t count on getting that close again.
Right now, Weather Underground’s showing a forecast of upper 30s, and 15 mph winds. That certainly leans the Bears’ way, but it could be a LOT worse.
I’ve got to more or less agree with fetus: the Redskins defense won, dominating early, then hanging on by their fingernails late.
It was not a win that felt really promising, though.
**Kiros, ** you express my thoughts on this one. That pass interference call was egregious, and totally emblematic of everything I hate about that penalty. It wasn’t a killer, but at the time I felt like it was a Very Bad Omen. In the past, the Patriots have had those kinds of things go their way. Actually, on the Bailey interception runback, I felt like the refs got it right – but I was kind of hoping they’d realize they had given the Broncos a gift touchdown, and that the Patriots deserved something in return. Hell of an effort by Watson – the kind of thing that won’t be forgotten by the coaches or the fans.
I second your feelings about the Broncos. Their offense basically got one measly field goal, if you subtract all the gift points. Not so good for a hometown game. Their defense managed no sacks in spite of all the blitzing, and gave up some huge pass plays. (That said, they got some big plays when they needed it – none bigger than Bailey’s INT.)
Parting thought – the Patriots look pretty well placed for next year. I’m just hoping that’s not the off-season profile of teams that later turn out to disappoint. But I’d expect the Patriots to play with attitude next year. This defeat has got to hurt.
I have to admit, Manning’s performance so far is certainly cheering me up a bit! Though eventually the possibility that we could have hosted the AFC championship will hit me :smack:
re: what you said earlier, I totally agree about Dillon - he looked absolutely dreadful. In fact, I think that’s what made the Broncos D look so good inside the 20; between the 20 and the 3 is the absolute hardest place to pass the ball, and the Pats had neither a power running game nor a threat of such to make it any easier. The Broncos just sat on those short patterns, which led to both futility and disaster. I think finding another power RB option has to be the biggest focus for this offseason (pending Harrison’s recovery), given that we are mostly set and fairly young at most of the other positions. Maybe another young CB too, I guess, for depth after Samuel and Hobbs.
