Wasn't Red Bryant also a starter in the Super Bowl?
So are you trying to tell us you think teams like the Eagles, Colts, and Falcons have better chances of going to the Super Bowl based on the fact they weren't in it last year?I am not going to make a prediction just yet. I have to see how the draft unfolds. But I think it is silly for anyone to predict the Broncos or Seahawks at this point. Very rarely do teams go to back-to-back Super Bowls. The last time it happened was in 2004.
The Packers are very good pick to go to the Super Bowl. They are a loaded team, from on both sides of the ball, and if they can find a running game and stay healthy, they will be hard to beat. Other teams to look out for would be the Falcons, Saints, Giants, 49ers, and Bears.
On the AFC side, I think it breaks down to either the Patriots, Colts, or Ravens.
So are you trying to tell us you think teams like the Eagles, Colts, and Falcons have better chances of going to the Super Bowl based on the fact they weren't in it last year?
That's just dumb. Correlation does not imply causation. A team having been involved in the previous year's Super Bowl has nothing to do with its chances of being involved in the next.
The only thing I could say that would maybe add to the validity teams having a harder road back is the fact that they have then played in more games than other teams the previous year meaning more wear and tear on players' bodies. This is about the only reason I could see being why it would be that much harder to repeat.
To me it is just hard to repeat because the NFL is so close from top to bottom because of the Cap. Bottom dwellers don't take long to rise back up. Seattle and Denver not too long ago were considered at best mediocre teams. A few years later with some nice drafts and FA pick ups and they are Super Bowl contenders. That to me is why it is hard to repeat. Teams can rebuild in a mater of a year or two.
So are you trying to tell us you think teams like the Eagles, Colts, and Falcons have better chances of going to the Super Bowl based on the fact they weren't in it last year?
That's just dumb. Correlation does not imply causation. A team having been involved in the previous year's Super Bowl has nothing to do with its chances of being involved in the next.
So are you trying to tell us you think teams like the Eagles, Colts, and Falcons have better chances of going to the Super Bowl based on the fact they weren't in it last year?
That's just dumb. Correlation does not imply causation. A team having been involved in the previous year's Super Bowl has nothing to do with its chances of being involved in the next.
PREACH!!! which is why im enjoying the hell out of this time right now. Although i will say Seattles core is so young right now I think they can last a little while longer. Did you know Earl Thomas is only 25 or 26? Seems like he's been in the league for 10 years already.
It is possible for the Hawks to stay together somewhat. With contracts coming up for Wilson, Sherman, Thomas, Avril, Wright, and Maxwell that is a lot of money to dish out. I'm guess at least 2 of those players are not on the team next year. For Seattle to stay at the top they are going to have to continue to draft starting caliber players like they have. They seem to have one of the better talent evaluating groups in the NFL so I would expect them to still do pretty well. The same was said about New England though and they haven't won a Super Bowl in over 10 years (given they have been in the hung most years). Plus saw that the head of recruiting for the Seahawks just quit so will be very interested to see how that changes things.
It is possible for the Hawks to stay together somewhat. With contracts coming up for Wilson, Sherman, Thomas, Avril, Wright, and Maxwell that is a lot of money to dish out. I'm guess at least 2 of those players are not on the team next year. For Seattle to stay at the top they are going to have to continue to draft starting caliber players like they have. They seem to have one of the better talent evaluating groups in the NFL so I would expect them to still do pretty well. The same was said about New England though and they haven't won a Super Bowl in over 10 years (given they have been in the hung most years). Plus saw that the head of recruiting for the Seahawks just quit so will be very interested to see how that changes things.
Your right, They will lock up the core, Sherman, Thomas, Chancellor (is already) and Wilson. Bennett (already is)
Maxwell has proven to be a potential star, Wagner is a rock solid MLB, Avrils coming up after next year. All those guys wont be able to be kept..... They just need to keep finding Sherman and maxwells (5th rounders) and Browners (ufa playing in canada) Malcolm smith superbowl mvp, 7th round, doug baldwin UDFA, Chancellor (4th round)
Those are alot of reasons im confident in Seattles staying ability. Then you add in that seattles first pick 2nd rounder last year was a RB....already planning for when Lynch is a RFA after 2 more years and hits 30?
Hmmm 9 years my friend Still forever
I think the Bears and Panthers are SIGNIFICANTLY worse this year. Panthers lost a ton of great players. No chance for a SB.
For the NFC, it could be just about anyone out of the NFC West, Saints or Packers. AFC is harder. It seems primed for someone to surprise. I hope it's not Denver, but probably will be.
Oh sorry trying to get ahead of myself. Maybe I am just hoping for 10 as that would mean one less team for the Broncos to compete with for the Super Bowl.
Can't speak for the Panthers but the Bears are headed in the right direction. They have vastly upgraded their defense this offseason. They won 8 games last year with the statistically worst defense in Bears history. They should be a playoff team this year baring terrible injuries.
Cutty needs to prove himself before they get the nod........When you basically lose your job to a mcown boy..... yikes