D
Deleted member 848
Guest
This is completely different; the rigours of a general season place both squads in completely different positions. OKC could have been coming off a road-trip, or coming from a city with very low elevation. Something along those lines.
With the Super Bowl, both teams have two weeks to prepare, and the game takes place in a neutral stadium. Comparing the two is laughable.
Do you think that if there was a one-game playoff b/w the Jazz and the Thunder, and both teams would prepare for 2 weeks ahead of time, that the Jazz would win?
If by some shred of luck that they did (they wouldn't), it would be chalked up to the mental weakness of OKC-- which is just as credible of a reason to say that one team is worse than another, than it is to base it off of scoring, defense, or anything in those realms.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
AKA it doesn't ****ing matter if the Broncos DID lay an egg-- the fact that they laid an egg says that they are either poorly coached, or their team lacks the mental -strength, and perseverance of the Seahawks. Which, by default, makes them the worse team.
This game wasn't decided by a last-minute touchdown-- in which case your "one game doesn't decide the better team" COULD have a shred of credibility. This was a one-sided affair, which exposed the Broncos defense, the Broncos coaching staff, and the Broncos team-morale as a whole.
This game wasn't decided by a last-minute touchdown-- in which case your "one game doesn't decide the better team" COULD have a shred of credibility. This was a one-sided affair, which exposed the Broncos defense, the Broncos coaching staff, and the Broncos team-morale as a whole.
First off equating the Jazz and Thunder to Seattle and Denver is silly. Better comps would be Indy/Miami/OKC/Spurs. Give them two weeks and if one of them lays an egg and is betten badly then that sucks. They got stomped and the winning took what they wanted. Hot damn they are the chanmps good for them. But claiming that one game as diffinative proof of one teams superiority (at roughly an equal talent level) over the other is a weak argument.
Maybe if the two teams really were different in talent like your Jazz/OKC matchup then yeah. I'd agree. But that's a bad comp and hopefully you know that. Your theory would work better on two top notch teams (liek denver and Seattle in a 7 game series).
All I am saying is that at that talent level one game is not enough to clearly detemrine who is better. Maybe Seattle is, they did win after all. But cut and dry? Nope, not buying it.
Massive amounts. It's cool though. That's sports. I'm fine. I had a Seahawks fan at my SB party. He was having a blast lol. My FB has about 20 links in a row blasting Manning/Broncos
Things like:
a pic of Manning with the words "I tried to throw in the towel but they intercepted it"
and
"the last great run by a Bronco was in 1994" and a pic of OJs white bronco running form police.
Funny stuff I won't lie.
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
@Stoked, nobody is saying that Denver was a bad team. They were a really good team that (IMO) played a team that was perfectly suited to stop them. They made the Superbowl and broke a ton of records along the way. Nobody is saying they are a ****ty team, just not as good as at least one team in the NFL, the Seahawks.
And I am saying basing all that off one game is stupid. Especially in the NFL. I never once said anyone was claiming Denver sucked. I am arguing the prnicipal. At a roughly equal talent level one game is not enough for me to declare one side clearly better than they other.
