By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sports Discussion - The NFL Thread 2015: Denver Broncos win Super Bowl 50

 

Who will win Super Bowl 50?

Patriots 116 25.00%
 
Seahawks 41 8.84%
 
Colts 7 1.51%
 
Packers 42 9.05%
 
Broncos 85 18.32%
 
Ravens 8 1.72%
 
Cowboys 18 3.88%
 
Panthers 56 12.07%
 
Other 74 15.95%
 
Scoreboard 17 3.66%
 
Total:464

The broncos are the first team to record less than 200 yards of offense in a super bowl and win. The other seven teams to do that all lost. Gonna have to go through the stats, because holy hell has a super bowl winning defense ever had to overcome such a horrible offense?



Around the Network
cheshirescat said:
The broncos are the first team to record less than 200 yards of offense in a super bowl and win. The other seven teams to do that all lost. Gonna have to go through the stats, because holy hell has a super bowl winning defense ever had to overcome such a horrible offense?

Possibly Ravens/Giants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXV



Congrats? Didn't even watch... lol.



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

RolStoppable said:
Carl2291 said:
That call is bullshit btw.

It broke the Panthers' back.

I am going to win the playoffs!

It did, and you did. Tip of the hat to you on winning the NIT!

 

That sounded a bit more sarcastic than I intended. Just a bit.

NobleTeam360 said:
RolStoppable said:

No, they didn't. Don't say such things when you didn't get paid to say them.

Well, I'm not saying it was great or anthing, but they were certainly more entertaining than Coldplay. 

That may have been the best halftime performance in recent history, and I want my thirty minutes back.

RolStoppable said:
Manning is so old. Why didn't he retire when he had the chance to?

I fear this post will be reposted come August.

Mike321 said:

At least he still has more super bowl MVP trophies 

I suppose that's true: they don't put asterisks next to stolen MVP awards, after all.

cheshirescat said:
The broncos are the first team to record less than 200 yards of offense in a super bowl and win. The other seven teams to do that all lost. Gonna have to go through the stats, because holy hell has a super bowl winning defense ever had to overcome such a horrible offense?

???

The Broncos have 231 yards of offense, no?



That should be right since they had 141 passing yards and 90 rushing yards.  Yahoo sports is just terrible in posting final total stats those numbers must be from the end of the third quater.  I get it now you have to subtract the yards lost via sacks (37) that is why the total yards where only 191.



Around the Network
noname2200 said:
cheshirescat said:
The broncos are the first team to record less than 200 yards of offense in a super bowl and win. The other seven teams to do that all lost. Gonna have to go through the stats, because holy hell has a super bowl winning defense ever had to overcome such a horrible offense?

???

The Broncos have 231 yards of offense, no?

Nope, after taking sacks and tackles for a loss into consideration the broncos only netted 194 yards of total offense.

Miguel_Zorro said:
cheshirescat said:
The broncos are the first team to record less than 200 yards of offense in a super bowl and win. The other seven teams to do that all lost. Gonna have to go through the stats, because holy hell has a super bowl winning defense ever had to overcome such a horrible offense?

Possibly Ravens/Giants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXV

From the stats the broncos offense is around the same level as the 2000 ravens and 2002 bucs, maybe actually a tiny bit better overall in yardage, but their offense gave up way more turnovers, and that's a big difference.  I'm still mulling over a lot of stats, trying to aggregate scoring defenses with defensive scores removed but it's a bit more difficult to find that information than I had anticipated.  That and I'm watching and listening to about a dozen different things at once.



cheshirescat said:
noname2200 said:

???

The Broncos have 231 yards of offense, no?

Nope, after taking sacks and tackles for a loss into consideration the broncos only netted 194 yards of total offense.

Ah, that makes sense. I assume the Panthers were close to being under 200 yards too, right? I can't find the post-loss numbers for them.



cheshirescat said:
Miguel_Zorro said:

Possibly Ravens/Giants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXV

From the stats the broncos offense is around the same level as the 2000 ravens and 2002 bucs, maybe actually a tiny bit better overall in yardage, but their offense gave up way more turnovers, and that's a big difference.  I'm still mulling over a lot of stats, trying to aggregate scoring defenses with defensive scores removed but it's a bit more difficult to find that information than I had anticipated.  That and I'm watching and listening to about a dozen different things at once.

Yes, there are a lot of things to compare. The 2000 Ravens pulled down 4 interceptions and had 1 fumble recovery.  The 2016 Broncos had fewer interceptions, but forced more fumbles.  Then there's the sack comparison.  And so on...



noname2200 said:
cheshirescat said:

Nope, after taking sacks and tackles for a loss into consideration the broncos only netted 194 yards of total offense.

Ah, that makes sense. I assume the Panthers were close to being under 200 yards too, right? I can't find the post-loss numbers for them.

No they got 315 total yards.



noname2200 said:
cheshirescat said:

Nope, after taking sacks and tackles for a loss into consideration the broncos only netted 194 yards of total offense.

Ah, that makes sense. I assume the Panthers were close to being under 200 yards too, right? I can't find the post-loss numbers for them.

They had 315 yards though they also had almost 20 more plays, while only possessing the ball for five more minutes.

 

On a small tangeant, and again, bias is talking here, but I'm still pissed about Steve Atwater not getting in the Hall, and talk that next year John Lynch will get in.  It's not that I don't like Lynch and think he shouldn't get in the Hall, but Atwater should get in first, and should quite frankly already be in.  Lynch is propped up by having played with better team mates, but Atwater came to an, at best, middling defense and his first year there they turned into a number one defense.

 

Their stats are almost identical, though Lynch played two more seasons and Atwater has way more overall tackles.  Lynch has one more probowl, they have the same number of all pro honors, and Atwater has one more super bowl under his belt and is on an all decade team, Lynch can't say that.  Not to mention that Lynch himself said that he was told to mold his style after Steve Atwater.  Then again the Hall doesn't seem to hold safety in high esteem for some reason, safeties have the hardest time getting into the hall outside of kickers and maybe true fullbacks.