View Single Post
Old 06-14-2007, 01:49 AM   #14
Livinginthe past
Living Legend
Livinginthe past's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Crushing the AFCE...annually
Posts: 7,520
Member Number: 478
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: NFL Super Bowl Champion: Third Year Theory

Originally Posted by ncoolong View Post
As usual, it's fantastic to receive feedback. I decided to post it all here as opposed to SteelersLive, mainly because it's so FREAKIN' long, so I apologize to those who actually read the whole thing.

Some may not have...

"Well, the Colts have been living 'year 2' for the last 5/6 years up until last year."

Actually, no, they haven't. They were embarrassed in the playoffs by your Patriots in 2004, were an odds-on favorite to win it all in 2005 and clearly had a loss in the middle-to-late part of 2006 that had most people writing them off (at Jacksonville).
Well, Neal, your 'year 2' definition was 'maybe even became the trendy pick for a Super Bowl, but fell short' - which describes the Colts to an absolute tee over the last 3/4 years.

Every year, it was going finally be Mannings year and every year - they fell short - sure they got beaten by the eventual champions on a couple of occasions - ain't no shame in that.

The Colts have been consistent regular season performers over this period - sure they had the odd blip (Jacksonville)but their overall record for the season has been very solid over this stretch (12-4,14-2,12-4,12-4).

The Steelers...not so much (8-8,11-5,15-1,6-10).

Originally Posted by ncoolong View Post
I will remind you all again this is a retroactive theory. the results will be better known at this point next year. While I do recognize that conveniently removes most if not all doubt about it, let's keep in mind this is done for entertainment purposes.
Most theories on past events tend to be 'retroactive' and they are often used to predict future trends - what im saying is that there is barely any substance to the '3 year theory'.

Originally Posted by ncoolong View Post
Also, you'll notice I didn't point out any team earlier than the Steelers' Super Bowl win. This was intentional, Living. Personally, I think you used it as a ploy to passive-aggressively point out the Patriots were able to repeat as champions, while the Steelers lost to the 2-14 Raiders. Nuthin' but love for the Pats, though. Jerk. No worries, I'm sorta kidding.
You didn't point out any team prior to the Steelers SB win?

In other words you theory is based solely on the Colts and Steelers?

I thought the Colts/Steelers comparison was heavily flawed (entertaining though) for the reasons I pointed out in the previous post - they simply haven't had similar regular season runs or media expectation reagrding imminent SB success.

When the Steelers won it all, they come from nowhere - when the Colts won it all they did it with HFA and as favorites in every game.

Oh, and I don't have to be as subtle as you suggest regarding the Patriots repeating - I just didn't realise the theory was based upon the Colts alone and not any other SB winner in the past 5/6 years.

Originally Posted by ncoolong View Post
"... have suffered very few regular season blips compared to the Steelers"
Umm...did you forget the fact they lost two of their final three games that year? No, they hadn't clinched yet.
As for others...
I was referring to the 'overall regular season' performance and the final record, rather than actual momentum from any one game.

The Colts have been super solid (despite what you may think of their defense) as a whole in the regular seasons prior to their SB win - the Steelers hadn't.

Originally Posted by ncoolong View Post
"Sorry, not buying the theory"
Of course you aren't! You didn't read it. We'll start with your mark against San Diego. I left off the coaching part largely because I was running over 10,000 words at one point. However, look at the Theory as explained: A first year of amassing talent on a young team - they just missed the playoffs after going 10-6. A second year of breaking out to a high level, but falling short, all the while gaining the experience and anger to take it all in a third year. Does this NOT sound like the San Diego Chargers? C'mon now...and if you disagree, take a look at the current Super Bowl favorites.
Sory to get all passive/aggresive again but seeing as you bring up the current SB favorites - I was wondering how long any one team could remain at 'year 2 status'?

The last time the Patriots had a drop off was after the 1st SB win in 2001 when they missed the postseason on a tiebreaker.

Originally Posted by ncoolong View Post
"...SB runner-up Chicago is listed as a year 2 team, while the Bungles, who haven't won a playoff game since Bush Sr. was in office is listed as another year 3 team? Riiight."
Chicago has done nothing to suggest they can stay at the level they were last year. I refuse to ever give a team the benefit of the doubt because they lost a big game the previous year (not a peep from you, Living). They won't have their versatile LB not named Urlacher, they lost their defensive coordinator (their new one was the first coach I covered...a Pittsburgh guy, too! More on Bob Babich in a later column), and basically did nothing but anger their fans and players for an entire off-season. As long as No. 8 is under center...can you give this team Year 3 status?
Its all opinion I guess, but I see no reason to doubt Chicagos potential to repeat in the NFC - they are well coached and especially well drilled on ST's which i think is a hall mark of a disciplined team.

Grossman isn't a very good QB, but in the NFC Chicago don't need him to be one.

Good teams lose good players and co-ords all the time - its the price of success that every team has to contend with.

Originally Posted by ncoolong View Post
Much is made out of teams that don't make the playoffs following a Super Bowl win. What about the team that lose the Super Bowl? Seattle eeked in a horrible NFC and should have lost in the first round, Philadelphia didn't make the playoffs, Carolina didn't make the playoffs (I don't think).

I guess you could call Year 2 sort of like The Schwartz. There's an upside, and there's a downside. Pittsburgh is Lone Star, Chicago is Dark Helmet.
Agreed. SB losers often have a terrible following year.

Originally Posted by ncoolong View Post
I mentioned quarterbacks a minute ago. Is it a surprise that the ones generally considered the best are all on Year 3 Teams? This isn't an accident. The QBs are usually the face of that tough loss they suffered in Year 2 - except for the Chargers, as LDT clearly held that look when he was about to attack the entire Patriots' defense after their playoff loss. Carson Palmer had that look when Santonio went over the pylon (I'm still saying it, the most satisfying non-playoff win since Pittsburgh kicked the halos off the Pats in 04). Steve McNair had it when his team couldn't get a first down in the second half. Peyton Manning had it when he looked at his wife a few months after his first Super Bowl win and realized TONY ROMO is apparently marrying Carrie Underwood.

Most importantly, Tom Brady had it when he had to look Peyton Manning in the eye, and take in that southern sneer of his, and congratulate him on beating him in the playoffs. While Brady will certainly lead the league in WR Broken Fingers this season, he's right up there with the other guys in the running for Biggest Chip on Shoulder.
The best teams have the best QB's - yeah thats one theory I think I can buy
They've been great for a while now, three Super Bowls' worth of great. But only this season have the New England Patriots become The Show, the must-see team of stars, pretty boys and reformed bad boys. Suddenly, the Patriots are not simply great; they're compelling, fascinating, appearing to be almighty and a touch lawless.
The Patriots didn't bother with swagger to start this NFL season; they went straight to defiant. Either you're one of them or you're about to get crushed.
Livinginthe past is offline   Reply With Quote