Too bad for you the first team Broncos didn't look good in last year's Super Bowl against Seattle :chuckle:
NFL 2014
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
- Status
Too bad for you the first team Broncos didn't look good in last year's Super Bowl against Seattle :chuckle:
I'm a Colts man, but I was sorry to see Peyton without enough time to use those weapons. With his line reshuffled and his pro bowler back in play, I like their chances to be better and I don't see Seattle repeating that Bears like performance.
Anyway, not many teams looked good against Seattle last year.
Your Steelers had it a little tougher, didn't they... Let's see, you lost 16 to 9 to that powerhouse Ten team to start it off, right? Then you lost to the Vikings, the Bengals and Bears...Raiders, Pats, Bal and Miami.
Had to be tough to take.
Had to be tough to take.
Not really. The Steelers had just been to 3 Super Bowls in 6 years (won 2 of them), 5 AFC Championship Games in 10 years, and 8 postseason appearances in 10 years
When a team has a successful run like that, there's usually some down years that follow.
BTW, Ben Roethlisberger is 2-1 in Super Bowls, and Peyton Manning is 1-2.
So you're saying Steeler fans don't mind losing? Well then, get ready for another year of newly practiced indifference.
Nice run. When was that again?
At least four...and counting a likely five this year.
Not even a Steeler fan would seriously contend that Ben was responsible for the first of those wins or that Peyton was responsible for his first loss (and arguably the second) any more than you could say Warner lost his bid with the Cardinals. Both of those fellows were let down by late defensive failures.
Just giving you a little grief back, Tet. You did start it.
Warner was terrible in the first half. He threw that 100 yard pick to James Harrison.
BTW, the following athletes are 38 years old.
1) Peyton Manning
2) Tiger Woods
3) Tim Duncan
4) David Ortiz
Which of the above four 38 years olds would you consider to still have some of their mojo left?
Peyton or Tim. But I haven't been paying attention to how Ortiz is doing this season.
It's unfair to lump golf in with those other sports but I still would choose any of the others over Tiger at this point. It's sad.
Well, hopefully both the Chiefs and Steelers will be on contention for the postseason in week 16, and the game will be significant.
Otherwise, tickets will be easy to get.
Ortiz was a major contributor to the Red Sox winning the World Series last year. He batted .688 in the World Series, and was the World Series MVP. In the ALCS he hit a game tying grand slam in the bottom of the eighth in game two. Ortiz finished in the top 10 for batting average, HR's, and RBI's in the American League for 2013.
Duncan was a major contributor to the Spurs winning the NBA Championship last year.
Peyton Manning led his team to the Super Bowl, and had an amazing regular season.
Tiger Woods was PGA Player of the Year for 2013.
As I asked earlier, which one of these guys still has his mojo. Lately, it appears Big Papi, and Tiger have lost theirs. Will Duncan and Peyton follow?
A bad throw makes him terrible? Without that one grab the score going into the half would be 10-7. To remind you, Warner's stats on the night were 377 yds (second only to his previous SB record 414), 3 tds and that 1 int with a passer rating of 112.3
Ben went for 256 yds, 1 td and 1 int. If the Cardinal defense had held at the end Warner is the MVP of another SB.
Good list.
Peyton Manning
Tiger Woods
Tim Duncan
David Ortiz
Manning is the best one on it. We have a number of QBs who have had superior performances at a time when most NFL players are long into retirement. Even before the rules made longevity and superior play easier it was done by a few greats. Manning looks as good as he did last season. I think he's the best of the bunch.
Duncan looked pretty darn effective, though what he does is much more demanding physically. Given his history and Pops' tendency to rest and reserve his aging stars when they need it, he should be in the mix at least another year, barring injury. Two wouldn't surprise me.
Ortiz is showing his age. All his averages are down. Great player, but not exactly a conditioning workhorse.
Tiger looks like he's missing something and the strength of his game as a young man just isn't going to work now. It costs him too much. But his age isn't ancient for a golfer...I just don't know. It feels like his wheels have come off.
There have been 10 golfers who won majors over the age of 40.
Leading the pack is Julius Boros, who was 48 when he won the 1968 PGA Championship, and Jack Nicklaus who was 46 when he won the 1986 Masters.
Just six years ago, Tom Watson finished tied for first place at the British Open when he was 59 years old. At 65 years old, Watson missed the cut by 4 strokes two days ago at the PGA Championship.
So, I agree it's hard to tell with golfers, but it appears Tiger's body has failed him. I don't know if he will ever win another major.
BTW, Tom Watson, at 65 years old, finished 3 strokes ahead of Tiger Woods this weekend, and not only made the cut at this years British Open, but also finished 2 strokes ahead of Tiger.
So....if Tiger can't beat a 65 year old man in two straight tournaments, I don't see him coming close to beating Rory McIlroy.
True, but with his recurring back problems and knees? That's what has me wondering.
Beats me. I'd love to see it and golf could use it, but I don't know....
Rory is something. Maybe Tiger can keep the mentor bit going, because it's really hard to see Tiger getting around the kid consistently at this point.
Kurt Warner had Larry Fitzgerald (who at the time was arguably the best WR in the league), and he didn't throw one pass to him in the first half.
Yes he is.
Rory just joined Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, and Bobby Jones as the only players to ever win four majors at 25 years old or younger.
You think he forgot Larry was there or they had to change schemes at the half to get him open in the coverage Pittsburgh had on him? Something happened to put Warner in a position to be the MVP and put up another great big game performance.
Not only did Warner have Fitzgerald, he also had Anquan Boldin and Steve Breaston.
To this day, I don't understand how Warner didn't have 400+ yards and at least 5 TD's. The Steelers corners were terrible.
Not to mention the Cardinals had former Colts RB Edgerrin James.
If it would have been a best-of-seven, the Cardinals definitely would have won the next four games.
I think they should have and had they had the background would have. Sometimes having an identity over time can give you something that matters when everything is on the line. I think that helped the Steelers when it came down to crunch time and contributed to the Cardinals failure. I always root AFC so it was a good game for me anyway.
And now it should be obvious why Clowney was the easy first choice. He can not be double or triple teamed every play in the NFL. Especially when JJ Watt will be on the line with him. The Texans will be a force just from this. It only needs a little time to develop.
A clear no brainer to me. The only way to neutralize the more potent and rules assisted passing attacks around the league is with a dominant pass rush. As Seattle demonstrated last year, you can beat the league's best offense with it. Weapons don't matter when you can't pull the trigger.
If they get any sort of offensive play it should be relatively short turn around for the Texans.
- Status