Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Jay Z wrote:The Bucs were in the top 3 in the NFC. Should have beat WFT and did. Wasn't impressed by Seattle all year and not surprised they lost.

Bucs were the 5th seed in the NFC. They finished 2nd in the NFC South behind the Saints.

Just remember what Super Bowl teams of old used to do. When the defense was able to put a handle on their passing game all they would do was hand the ball off to their All Pro or (sometimes) Hall of Fame running back. Plus they generally had much stronger defenses then what we see today. That's why I say that teams now just aren't at the same level that pre-salary cap teams were at. I understand why they changed it but it is a little frustrating when we see these one dimensional teams with suspect defenses go 14-2 and get talked about as historic type teams. THe '80's Dolphins were like that and they were only able to make it to one Super Bowl.

If the '80's Dolphins were playing against todays kind of competition Marino would probably have about four rings.

fgoodwin wrote:

Jay Z wrote:The Bucs were in the top 3 in the NFC. Should have beat WFT and did. Wasn't impressed by Seattle all year and not surprised they lost.

Bucs were the 5th seed in the NFC. They finished 2nd in the NFC South behind the Saints.

You can still be "one of the top three teams" if another of the top three is in your division. That is what I meant.

The top 4 teams in the NFL in 1967 were Colts, Rams, Packers and Cowboys. Colts didn't go to the playoffs because two of them were in the same division and no Wild Card back then.

lastcat3 wrote:For that one drive I agree there were a couple ticky tack calls and if the game was close I think there would be a bit of an argument about that. But the Chiefs only scored 9 points so I don't think there should be many issues with the refs. THe Chiefs were just totally exposed as a team.

I don't know if the Chiefs could have won, probably not. Point being the game was ruined by that point. Chiefs lost their composure.

If you're the Chiefs, you watch the Buccaneers against the Packers and literally nothing is being called. Nothing. So much so that a penalty at the end was complained about because you've called nothing the whole game and now you make a call.

So if you don't do everything, like hold the receivers, like the Bucs did against the Packers to get an INT, you might not be doing enough. And the officials decide to go ticky-tack. All against the same team. The Bucs were getting there early, committing PIs that were not being called, hitting Mahomes in the head and have that not being called. Offensive holding on the Chiefs they probably could have called more, then the one they decide to call is a ticky-tack. This one is going to be remembered for the refs because the game got ugly, because of the refs, before it was decided.

Ouch! None of us saw that coming! Chiefs losing? Not surprising. They were just barely favorites after all and were up against a more-balanced team led by the GOAT QB. But losing convincingly despite already having experienced winning-it-all last year?

lastcat3 wrote:I guess you could compare this game to the Raiders/Redskins Super Bowl. But really I don't think you should compare either of these teams to those two.

Yep! In the very week that Tom Flores gets inducted in the PFHOF, this reminds me of that very SB in which he won convincingly over a defending-Champ! And the final score was almost the same!

As for the team that got it done tonight...they now look like the '97 Broncos to me in that they didn't look like the best team in the conference during the regular-season but win-out in the playoffs and do it again the following year but as a wire-to-wire top-dog (although Denver in '97 did look juggernaut-like through November before backing into that wild card spot)! Yes, unless the opposite applies this off-season as opposed to last off-season - Tampa Bay losing key players, especially #12 - they will play SB-caliber throughout the entire regular and post-season. I think this would have been the case next year whether they won or lost tonight. They can only get even better! And mentally thus physically, Brady is nowhere near resting on any laurels! He simply wants MORE!

lastcat3 wrote:Well the Chiefs ended up being completely outmatched in this game. Tampa is good but I think it is more of a case of how overrated the Chiefs are by people. Really all you need to do to shut them down is take away one of their two big receivers. They don't really have a running game to fall back on nor a defense that can shut the other teams offense down. They would have lost last years Super Bowl as well if the 49ers had a pretty good qb.

It will be interesting to watch the Chiefs team next year as the Bucs really put out a formula to handle their offense.

Got my predictions the past two years in reverse! Last year I thought SF would win convincing-enough, with Garoppolo winning the MVP, because of more balance and this year I thought the Chiefs would pull it off anyway despite not being as balanced. Perhaps my Griese-in-waiting proclamation of Jimmy G was an even greater miscalculation. Facing Brady instead for this Super Bowl quite a difference!

If my attitude after last year was being that the "jury's still out" on Garoppolo, then I can certainly have that attitude on the Chiefs and where they go from here. Maybe, as Romo said end of game, Mahomes will return to many more SBs and win many more. Or maybe it'll be the last one he ever appears in. Or somewhere in-between. Defenses will adjust to them, but maybe Reid will then readjust to their readjustments. I guess they'll have a relative letdown the next season or two before bouncing back if they do bounce back. We'll just have to see.

Though not as balanced as either of their last two SB opponents, KC's defense to me was complementary-enough of their explosive passing game as was their run-game. That goal-line-stand (and vs Brady, mind you) was impressive. But penalties didn't help them tonight, and the D and run-game could still use improvement as evidenced in they getting out-physical-ed.

Though I really wanted KC to win, I was at least glad to see Arians win one. Of course a part of that '08 Steelers title as well as coming a long, long way from the School of Bear Bryant (one of his last assistants). In addition to Noll, Cowher & Carroll (both against each other in that '97 divisional), this makes Arians now the fourth SB-winning HC whom I can say that I've seen coach in-person for I attended a Temple game in '86 - Paul Palmer at RB, 2nd albeit distant-2nd-place to Testaverde for the Heisman that year; future-(between Herschel and Emmitt)-'star' RB of that '89 Cowboys team.

Anyways, back to subject, a drab SB it was! Fortunately it hasn't been a common occurrence these past 25 years. We've been spoiled. I already, reluctantly "surrendered" Montana to Brady in my personal GOAT QB. I feel there's still enough pro-Joe Cool argument in the tank but I've passed that by - and am now even further away after this without-Belichick year. He wins again - and then yet another one after that - it'll be as many - and then more - Lombardis than Bradshaw & Montana combined respectably! QUITE surreal! None of us could have possibly imagined such a thing 19 years ago this week after shocking the Rams! Nor even after he won his 3rd three years later!

Refs or not, TB just controlled the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. Barrett was relentless and could have been MVP with his pass rush. Good tough running as well, which TB needed to keep Mahomes from getting into a throwing rhythm. Brady and Gronk just took over. I had never seen KC play a game this bad since Mahomes took over from Smith.
When Mahomes perfect pass bounced off Hills facemask in the first quarter, that could have been a TD, it seemed TB started to settle down on defense ... That punter for KC put them in bad spots as well. Happy that former Titan Succup gets a ring ...

74_75_78_79_ wrote: Yep! In the very week that Tom Flores gets inducted in the PFHOF, this reminds me of that very SB in which he won convincingly over a defending-Champ! And the final score was almost the same!

Yep and just out of curiosity does todays game irritate you as much as it does me sometimes? I take it from your username you were a big fan of those '70's Steelers teams who had Hall of Famers all across the board. Do you find it difficult to not judge teams of today to those teams? If teams happened to shut down those Steelers teams passing game they could just hand the ball off to their Hall of Fame running back. I understand that teams today aren't really able to afford rosters like that anylonger but it does make it hard sometimes to consider todays teams to be in the same conversation as those 70's Steelers or '80's 49ers.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Maybe, as Romo said end of game, Mahomes will return to many more SBs and win many more. Or maybe it'll be the last one he ever appears in. Or somewhere in-between.

I have every confidence this prediction will be correct.

For many years I have had a six headed QB Mount Rushmore. Well, I think it should now be clear to all that one of the heads has to be removed and placed alone upon Mount Olympus. It can no longer be denied that Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time.

And this, my friends, is why I never actually bet money on games. I predicted KC winning a shootout, 38-35. Instead we got a game that reminds me of my Uncle Rudy's homemade holiday horseradish: for all the hype, surprisingly bland.