I'm hoping for an Eagles/Steelers Super Bowl, but being a pessimist I expect a similar result to what happened the last time both teams made their respective conference championship games. Plus it scares me that Salisbury is already picking the Eagles to win, if Hoge picks them as well, I know they’ll lose.
Dimwhit said:
Well, I'm biased, but Vick has always been an awesome QB.
No he’s not, he’s an average to poor QB, who is the best runner outside of Barry Sanders from the last twenty years or so. He is however an awesome
player, and once his passing ability comes around he’ll be an awesome quarterback.
In fact I think Vick is in the same place in his career McNabb was at a two or three years ago, not quite developed passing skills, no quality receivers to throw to, and the need to rely on his feet to make plays.
Silver Moon said:
They even got a crack about that into the opening of Saturday Night Live. I think he would have been forgiven for the first one, it was mighty long and he barely missed it. The second one however earned him permanent Goat status.
Maybe, but it shouldn’t. This one lies at the feet of the coaching staff, right along with the Scott Norwood miss, 43 and 47 field goals aren’t gimmies, especially in a stadium like Heinz Field, and to settle for long field goals like that is a sure way to lose a game.
drothgery said:
Pittsburgh and New England are more evenly matched; the Steelers superior defense against the Patriots superior offense. I think that New England's offensive edge is greater than the Pittsburgh's defensive edge and New England isn't starting a rookie QB. >snip<
I’ve been thinking since Saturday night that maybe Pittsburgh should play Maddox, start Ben, but if he starts to slip make a change. Ben’s play has being going down over the course of the season, so…
GlassJaw said:
Steelers looked VERY beatable in the Jets game, and that was at home. If it wasn't for a stupid kicker, they should have lost.
Keep in mind though that A) The Jets played the Steelers close in the regular season (closer than the Pats in fact), B) have a good D and a good running game, so were hardly chopped liver, and C) Were only close in the game because of a punt return touchdown and an interception return TD, or in other words the Steelers defense
shutdown the Jets.
So don’t go over reacting to hat happened in the previous week, just like a lot of people did after the wild card round.
msd said:
This one really can't be pinned on Manning (believe me...I spent half the night trying to figure out a way how
). The guy can't do his stuff if he is never on the field and let's face it, he was practically never on the field.
I’d say the third biggest problem was the case of Seahwakitis his receivers had at the start of the game, which fueled the second biggest problem the Colts had in the game, the case of here we go again syndrome.
Of course the biggest problem was the fact the Pats are just a better team.
Dimwhit said:
Well, I have to pick the Falcons, since they're my team. If they play Philly like they did the Rams, I think they have a shot.
Please, that's no way to judge this game. It's similar to how all the talking heads gave the Rams and Vikings a chance against the Falcons and Eagles, they saw impressive performances in the previous games and failed to take into consideration that the teams they beat were
bad, so judging how ATL will do against PHI based on their drubbing of the Rams is misguided at best.
To sum up, predicting how a team will do against someone based on their play against inferior competition is a mistake.
The Rams, Vikings, Seahawks, and even the Packers didn't deserve to be in the playoffs, and only got in because everyone behind them was even worse. The NFL should excluded them given the Falcons and Eagles an extra bye and a pass straight to the NFC championship game and had a few exhibition games in between with the also rans to fill timeslots.
