*** Super Bowl XLIX Seattle Seahawks vs. New England Patriots discussion thread ***

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arizona's situation was significantly worse than any team, at any point in the year

Yup no doubt.
Two qbs injured and they start a 0 win QB, starting RB retired in the offseason, new Starting RB gets injured, Honey-Badger, Foote, and campbell.
I remember Fitzgerald was out for a little bit but not sure.
 
Arizona's situation was significantly worse than any team, at any point in the year

If they were in the Super Bowl instead of Seattle, and New England won by a score of say 17-3, would Tom Brady still be considered GOAT?
 
If a can falls in the woods, is he still a can?

The answer is probably "yes". Who knows for sure
 
Lol like it's Tom Brady's fault their secondary is made of glass.
 
I do think injuries played a hand in the game, but probably not as much as people think. I also think the Legion of Boom is quite a bit overrated. You'd think they were miles and miles ahead of everyone else they way they're constantly praised but they can be beaten and other secondaries can put up comparable performances.

Also,
B82S8sJCQAAjKCW.png:large
 
Well a healthy LOB is a better LOB, however, for the majority of the game Brady stayed away from them. It worked, obviously. Off the top of my head, I recall a missed tackle by Sherman (didn't lead to much gain, anyways) and a completed pass to Gronk on Kam. There's a good chance both would've happened either way.
 
Simon is fucking terrible. If we're lumping him into the LOB, then he's like the retarded second cousin
 
Lol no. Just the core four. Obviously the injury to Lane helped out the Pats because you can't get much worse than Simon.
 
Injuries happen, it's part of football. Seahawks fans can tell themselves whatever they want, but the Patriots will always have the W on their record and the ring. I'm a Bills fan primarily and I believe that the team in 1990 was the best in the league, but we'll never be able to say we won that year. Wide right is still more gut wrenching to me than the Butler interception, especially when Seattle won the SB last year.
 
Injuries kill any team, which is why I think using Super Bowl rings as the end-all be-all for determining a legacy is pretty silly. You could make the argument, sure, that Seattle would have won the game if both teams were totally healthy. By the same token, you could easily make an argument that the Pats might have won the other 2 SBs they lost with a healthy roster. Winning a Super Bowl and keeping enough healthy players to do so requires so much luck it's insane.

I will also say, however, that staying healthy and being durable is also part of what a player brings to the table. Just off the top of my head, the Pats gave up Talib basically only because he was injured for two postseasons when they needed him. Stuff like Bountygate obviously puts a different spin on that. But you have to admire someone like Edelmen, who gets smashed every game and never seems to get injured.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top