12/23/24
January 18, 2004
Carolina Panthers are going to the Super Bowl!: Who'd have thought it two years ago, after the Cats were 1-15? Well, it happened as Carolina sent the Philadelphia Eagles to their third consecutive NFC Championship game loss, by the score of 14 to 3. Up next, the New England Patriots, who knocked off the Indianapolis Colts at Foxboro today by the score of 24 to 14.
posted by jasonbondshow to football at 09:38 PM - 35 comments
I don't think I've been so excited to wake up and see snow since I was in high school and hoping for school to get cancelled. If not for the November 30 goal-line stand, the game would've been in the dome in Indy, and that could've made a big difference.
posted by dimmykarras at 10:09 PM on January 18, 2004
the old curmudgeon says: wake me when it's time for the pro bowl. Say, now... basketball, eh?
posted by forksclovetofu at 11:01 PM on January 18, 2004
People watch the pro bowl?
posted by justgary at 03:41 AM on January 19, 2004
no.
posted by deadcowdan at 07:20 AM on January 19, 2004
In dunno, jerseygirl, Manning looked pretty good in the game last night. Oh, you mean Peyton Manning.
posted by deadcowdan at 07:22 AM on January 19, 2004
I'm looking forward to this Super Bowl. The Patriots have the potential to be a dynasty -- or the closest we'll get to one in the salary cap era -- and Jake Delhomme and the rest of the no-name Panthers are a good story. I don't, however, think the game will be close. Patriots by 13.
posted by rcade at 08:50 AM on January 19, 2004
I think it's awfully tough to give out goat awards in the New England/Indy game. Peyton was so good before Sunday and frankly, it looked like they just lost to a better team. On the other hand, it's easy to find people to blame for the Philly loss. Plain and simple, their wide receivers are terrible. Todd Pinkston says, ""I wouldn't say we let him [McNabb] down. But we didn't make the plays when the chances were there."... which in my dictionary defines "letting him down".
posted by 86 at 08:52 AM on January 19, 2004
what defines a dynasty nowadays, in your opinions?
posted by jerseygirl at 09:24 AM on January 19, 2004
if i were a betting man....i'd take the panthers. the pats weren't effective in the red zone against a very suspect defense in indy. if they play like that against carolina and they'll let carolina hang around and grind it out. frankly, the pats have been pretty cluch. and clutch is a fleeting thing in football. carolina just keeps wearing down opponenets with good football. i wouldn't at all be suprised to see carolina win the game. i feel like the panthers are going to do the same thing the pats did to the rams a couple years ago.
posted by oliver_crunk at 09:35 AM on January 19, 2004
Give McNabb a lot of credit for two things — gutting it out after suffering some apparent bruised ribs early in the game, and not shooting his receiving corps in the face with a bazooka.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:36 AM on January 19, 2004
the game will be close, the hype will be endless, but the real matchup is going to be the Pats short passing game vs the Panthers linebackers, and the Panthers running game vs the Pats front 7, Dellhome will need the running game so he can get the ball downfiled to Smith, and Mushin. I'm looking forward to the game, but i'm a football junkie so I look forward to a high school championship game.
posted by jbou at 10:16 AM on January 19, 2004
I knew all along the Super Bowl would be Carolina vs. the Pats. I like the Patriots chances...because where I was watching the game, their fans seemed to want it more.
posted by vito90 at 10:46 AM on January 19, 2004
I like Carolina a lot. More importantly, I like the NFC. Or maybe I'm just not a Patriots fan. I don't like the team name, I don't like their uniforms, and I don't like the "no-hype" hype they generate. It's really nothing personal or even logical.
posted by rocketman at 11:33 AM on January 19, 2004
I don't like the team name I don't like their uniforms I don't like the "no-hype" hype they generate. Or maybe I'm just not a Patriots fan. nahhh, that can't be it!
posted by jerseygirl at 11:36 AM on January 19, 2004
I can't dump on Philly the way their fans and the media are doing. They had a good season, finishing strong. And that counts for a lot: I got the distinct impression during the Colts-Pats game that if the game had been in the dome in Indy the Colts probably would have won. So a good regular season record is important come the playoffs.
posted by cg1001a at 11:46 AM on January 19, 2004
JG - good question. does Denver count for winning 2 straight SBs? if NE does (as some people would like to think), then Denver should, but 2 isn't enough (following the once luck, twice coincidence, three time the charm logic). what defines a dynasty? SB wins? SB appearances? conf championships? playoff appearances? i'd say 3 or more SB appearances in a short stretch would define a dynasty - so NE needs to repeat next year or the year after to qualify. this would make Buffalo and Dallas the last contenders. and obviously a dynasty that wins SBs is superior to one that can't get it done, so Dallas is the last mighty dynasty whereas Buffalo is a lovable loser of a dynasty. not to say there aren't great teams that were dominant in their time and had amazing skills, but if you're going to say it's all about the SB then a dynasty has got to be in the big game.
posted by kokaku at 11:49 AM on January 19, 2004
I like Carolina a lot. More importantly, I like the NFC. At the risk of jinxing the Pats, I don't think Philly or Carolina could come out with a winning record if they played the AFC playoff teams. At least not the ones from the round of 4 (Pats, Colts, Chiefs, Titans).
posted by yerfatma at 11:50 AM on January 19, 2004
My rule for dynasties is: (X/2) (or more) championships in X years, where X>3 and the last championship was won in the Xth year. Examples: Pats win this one, that will be 2 titles in 3 years. Not a dynasty as it's only 3 years. Detroit Red Wings win 3 Stanley Cups in 6 years. It's a dynasty. NJ Devils win 3 Stanley Cups in 9 years. Not a dynasty as it's not enough wins in that time. Dallas Cowboys (early 90s) win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. Definitely a dynasty.
posted by grum@work at 12:22 PM on January 19, 2004
The Patriots are no-doubt the best team in the league, but the Panthers certainly have earned their right to be there by beating the "best teams" in the NFC, as lame as that is. It's certainly true that the AFC has the lion's share of power but Carolina has a Defense that will keep them in every game Can't see this game getting out of hand one way or the other, it'll be close the whole way. With 2 minutes to go one team will have the ball with an opportunity to seal the outcome of the game.
posted by YukonGold at 12:36 PM on January 19, 2004
The Pats aren't a dynasty yet; however, I'm thinking that the way their players don't tend to be big-ticket items may give them a certain kind of staying power in years to come. We shall see. oliver_crunk wrote: the pats weren't effective in the red zone against a very suspect defense in indy. They were indeed not successful at getting it in the end zone more than once (or twice, if you count the time when the Colts had it in their end zone and...um...well...). But they were plenty effective at getting the ball far enough down the field for Adam V to yawn and boot another one through the uprights. The saying is, "You can't trade touchdowns for field goals," and guess what, they didn't. Field goals work just fine if the other side is equally "[in]effective in the red zone." Carolina has shown some unexpected fight and good ballplaying, but my money and sympathy are both with the Pats.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:40 PM on January 19, 2004
Funny how we sports fans have redefined the word "dynasty", which actually refers to a group that stays in power across changes in personnel, e.g., like the NY Yankees from 1921 to 1964. Like grum above, we now use dynasty to describe a professional sports franchise which wins multiple championships in a relatively short time span.
posted by cg1001a at 01:47 PM on January 19, 2004
From what you guys have said and what i've been hearing, a dynasty in baseball is just different than a football dynasty.
posted by jerseygirl at 01:58 PM on January 19, 2004
what a great sports weekend. I'm taking the panthers by a touchdown in XXXVIII.
posted by corpse at 02:14 PM on January 19, 2004
[W]e now use dynasty to describe a professional sports franchise which wins multiple championships in a relatively short time span. I think that's why people keep mentioning the Patriots as a potential "dynasty", because they're successful in spite of the current financial climate and they've demonstrated an organizational philosophy that suggests they will continue to be sensible.
posted by yerfatma at 03:35 PM on January 19, 2004
I think the game will be close, because these teams play close games. I think the Patriots will win, and it'll be a pretty defensive game. Something along the lines of 20-16. Maybe not even that high.
posted by nath at 01:58 AM on January 20, 2004
I knew all along the Super Bowl would be Carolina vs. the Pats. you forgot to close yr sarcasm tag, vito.
posted by danostuporstar at 08:58 AM on January 20, 2004
ouch.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:24 AM on January 20, 2004
Guess not everyone's excited, huh?
posted by yerfatma at 11:49 AM on January 20, 2004
It's Parity's Baby, almost as frightening as Rosemary's. good point. Our two beloved Super squads combined for three measly touchdowns Sunday, yet somehow won anyway. better point. It's Robert's Rules of Order football: Run the ball, stick to short, high-percentage passing routes, get an early lead, defend via scheme, then sit back and enjoy the precision place-kicking. We have a winner! /bitter
posted by forksclovetofu at 12:32 PM on January 20, 2004
If CBS could opt out, you can be sure it would be dumping this advertising albatross on PBS, where it could serve as a lead-in to the next cheesy doo-wop special. Yes, Carl, I'm sure they'd be more than willing to ditch this game, especially since they have nearly all of their 30-second spots sold out at $2.3 million a pop.
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:33 PM on January 20, 2004
It's Robert's Rules of Order football: Run the ball, stick to short, high-percentage passing routes, get an early lead, defend via scheme, then sit back and enjoy the precision place-kicking. By the way, Carl, it's known as winning. You might want to tell Al and his group of whiny bitches to grab a soda, pull up a chair and learn something next Sunday. :)
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:41 PM on January 20, 2004
oooh - sour grapes from Oakland - there's a surprise so many things to be bitter about in that town
posted by kokaku at 01:17 PM on January 20, 2004
It's really nothing personal or even logical. This is the purest distillation of what it is to be a sports fan.
posted by Skot at 01:29 PM on January 20, 2004
whereas Buffalo is a lovable loser of a dynasty. or as i like to call them, next year's champions. why yes, i'm a cowboys fan. why do you ask?
posted by lescour at 02:43 PM on January 20, 2004
Belichick befuddled the hell out of Manning... again.