Super Bowl 49

[oldecapecod11]

Last year, if I recall, there were about 25 predictions on three pages which, at that time,
held 20 posts per page instead of the 10 per page with this thing.

Anyway, here's the re-cap:

Rupert Patrick
Seattle 27 - 20

oldecapecod 11
Seattle 35 - 10

Bob Gill
going to happen today

conace21
Seattle - Russell Wilson's legs

LJP - Tony Medlin footballs

JohnH19
Seattle 23 - 17 rooting for the Pats

ChrisBabcock
Seahawks 27 - 23

Reaser
Seahawks 45 - 44 or less

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Patriots 35 - Seahawks 16.

Sorry guys, but it all happens today - Brady's third Super Bowl MVP, fourth ring, Belichick's fourth title.

[Mark L. Ford]

On a different subject, I can't remember the last time I saw one quarter of an NFL game move that quickly-- it took about half an hour, including the commercials.

[26554]

WHY throw the football there?! Stupid, stupid, stupid

[Reaser]

Patriots 35 - Seahawks 16.

Congrats Jeremy on being the only PFRA member to pick the Patriots to win the SB in our preseason predictions. Give up my two year title, good luck next year trying to tie my record of two in a row.

[JohnH19]

There's a lot of talk by the deep thinkers on the NFL N about Brady and Belichick being the best QB/coach combo of all time, with no mention of Luckman/Halas, Graham/Brown or Starr/Lombardi. They believe that Montana and Walsh are the only competition. Why does this continue to disappoint and annoy me when I know darn well there was no American professional football before the creation of the Super Bowl?

[Bob Gill]

There's a lot of talk by the deep thinkers on the NFL N about Brady and Belichick being the best QB/coach combo of all time, with no mention of Luckman/Halas, Graham/Brown or Starr/Lombardi. They believe that Montana and Walsh are the only competition. Why does this continue to disappoint and annoy me when I know darn well there was no American professional football before the creation of the Super Bowl?

At one point during the second half they put up a graphic showing three top combinations -- probably they called it the "three best ever," but I didn't hear the comments so I can't say for sure. The three were Walsh/Montana, Belichick/Brady, and Lombardi/Starr. For each pair I think they listed the number of championship game appearances, and the number of wins. But for Lombardi and Starr -- again, I THINK -- the numbers were four and two, which aren't correct in either case. The actual numbers, of course, are six and five. I'd guess they included only Super Bowls, in their usual style, but in that case Lombardi and Starr's numbers should've been two and two, and I'm pretty sure that's not what it said.

On a related topic, just the other day I was thinking that Starr and Luckman are the two most underappreciated of the great quarterbacks. People will tell you Brady and Montana are the best "modern" QBs because "they have the rings to prove it," but in the next breath they'll say Unitas was the greatest of his era despite the fact that Starr won more often, or that Baugh was the greatest of his era even though Luckman won more often. It's weird.