Let me give you a strange notion. What if Atlanta slows the game down too. Understanding that their defense is unlikely to stop NE, they play the game I've been speculating NE should to keep Atlanta's offense off the field.
He's 2 for 4. 50% isn't to be sneezed at, but 6/8, or 75% is a pretty strong edge for Atlanta, and the Atlanta kicker has one that's nearly 10 yards deeper among those kicks. What I'm saying is that if both teams play slower ball, the team with the edge is Atlanta. They need to trade until late then dink or, if time is short, get the ball down field the least amount of yards between the two to give their kicker a chance. I really like Atlanta's chances in this game.
Ummm..The 1960's Packers had 5 championships including three in a row (1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967).
I'm only counting the SB wins, but their earlier dominance did factor in my naming them a dynasty despite having only two. That was their decade.
Why are you only counting Super Bowl wins? A championship is a championship, no? Had the Super Bowl started in 1960 the Packers likely would have won 5 Super Bowls in 7 seasons.
Because that's the usual metric for speaking to modern NFL dynasties (and I credited the prior dominance by noting them as the team of that decade in any event). Given the merger and a need for a line of meaningful demarcation, I think it's reasonable.
Well, no, which is why we don't hold all championships in the same light, outside of recognizing the titles conferred.
Possibly. They won two after the merger, with increased competition. So I credited the past without conflating it with the reality of post merger football.
I'd say you have to distinguish between one league and the joining of two and that the SBs do that. And noting a dominant team that arguably would have been had the leagues been joined prior doesn't really prove the other league was lesser, only that, arguably, it didn't have anyone who could have competed with the Packers then either.
I'm truly sorry that you feel my noting the 60s as theirs and representative of their dynasty was insufficient praise.
Should I order them a special trophy?Spoken like a loyal supporter of the other conference. That's what Baltimore thought too.
How many pts do you think Atlanta puts up? I could see 28, plus or minus. Say, 25-32 pts. Do I think that NE can put up 35 pts? Yes. In order for NE to be shocked, it'd have to be at their own terrible play. Do you think that NE will play terribly? I don't.
I have it a one point toss up so I'd be inclined to take the points. It depends on whether Atlanta slows their tempo and catches NE flat against the change. Also, with Clayborn out Beasley is going to have to take over most of the rush responsibility. Brady with someone in his face isn't Tom Terrific.
Can't see the Pats panicking. They'll look to play slow ball and use Bill's mentor's gameplan against a fast Buffalo Bills team ages ago. That's why I'm thinking Atlanta should shock them and use all that talent to move up the field slowly, methodically. Tire the Pats thin defense out early. If it's close late they can either rely on a better kicker to seal it or unleash the hounds if they have the ball late with little time.
Well, to be fair, they've been three times since Brady's early period and they're fortunate to have one out of the three of the latter performances.
Sure, but who is really ready to challenge the Pats at this point for AFC dominance?
