NFL playoffs

[Sodboy13]

My bad, Sod. I was throwing out that report. I definitely should've stressed sarcasm there. I don't think Cutler quit at all. In fact, I think all the analysts and players who bashed him own the guy a massive apology, 'cause dude got slammed by almost everyone.

Ah, gotcha. No worries. The old problem with detecting sarcasm on the internet strikes again. But the number of meatballs who will be saying something damn near what I posted today just makes me feel bad for Bears fans capable of having a thought.

[RedRenesis]

from "The Penalty Box" forum:

Last 10 NFC Super Bowl Representatives:

● St. Louis Rams ● XXXVI

● Tampa Bay Buccaneers ● XXXVII

● Carolina Panthers ● XXXVIII

● Philadelphia Eagles ● XXXIX

● Seattle Seahawks ● XL

● Chicago Bears ● XLI

● New York Giants ● XLII

● Arizona Cardinals ● XLIII

● New Orleans Saints ● XLIV

● Green Bay Packers ● XLV

This is the first time in the Super Bowl era that either league/conference sent ten different teams to the Super Bowl in a ten year stretch.

In this same time period, the AFC has only sent four teams:

● New England Patriots ● XXXVI ● XXXVIII ● XXXIX ● XLII

● Pittsburgh Steelers ● XL ● XLIII ● XLV

● Indianapolis Colts ● XLI ● XLIV

● Oakland Raiders ● XXXVII

How amusing is it to see the Raiders on that list?

[infrared41]

I believe you should be a true fan to one team in a sport (and a bandwagon fan to anyone playing your rivals).

Why is that? I'm curious to hear your reasoning on the matter.

It's pretty simple actually.

If you have two teams you are "truly" a fan of, who do you root for when they play each other? The fact is, either you actually have loyalty to one team, or you're a very shallow sports fan and just like having your cake and eating it too. IMO, you can't truly appreciate the success of a team as a fan unless you are a true fan. This doesn't mean you're not allowed to align yourself with any or all the teams you want, just my opinion.

Interesting. I'm curious to see your opinion on this. I'm not trying to give you a hard time or start an argument. I just want to see how you'd handle these situations.

First and foremost I am a Cleveland Browns fan. That said, I also like the Packers enough to consider myself a fan of the team. When the Browns play the Packers there's no question who I root for, it's the Browns. Since I also consider myself a bit of a Packers fan, does that mean I'm not a "true" Browns fan? Does it make me "a very shallow sports fan?" Let's say the Packers win the Super Bowl in two weeks. Does that mean if the Browns finally get it together and win a Super Bowl that I won't appreciate it as much as I would have if I didn't like the Packers?

As I said, I consider myself first and foremost a Browns fan but I also really like the Packers. I believe that liking the Packers does not in any way affect my "status" as a hard core Cleveland Browns fan. So what's the verdict?

This may be a better test for your "theory." I am an alumnus of both Ohio State and THE University of Toledo. As such I consider myself a fan of both. Based on your theory, despite the fact that I have plenty of justification to be a fan of both, I have to choose one and ditch the other. Any suggestions on which one I should drop?

[TFoA]

from "The Penalty Box" forum:

Last 10 NFC Super Bowl Representatives:

● St. Louis Rams ● XXXVI

● Tampa Bay Buccaneers ● XXXVII

● Carolina Panthers ● XXXVIII

● Philadelphia Eagles ● XXXIX

● Seattle Seahawks ● XL

● Chicago Bears ● XLI

● New York Giants ● XLII

● Arizona Cardinals ● XLIII

● New Orleans Saints ● XLIV

● Green Bay Packers ● XLV

This is the first time in the Super Bowl era that either league/conference sent ten different teams to the Super Bowl in a ten year stretch.

In this same time period, the AFC has only sent four teams:

● New England Patriots ● XXXVI ● XXXVIII ● XXXIX ● XLII

● Pittsburgh Steelers ● XL ● XLIII ● XLV

● Indianapolis Colts ● XLI ● XLIV

● Oakland Raiders ● XXXVII

How amusing is it to see the Raiders on that list?

Makes their fall from grace seem so much more astounding. That franchise was really good not too long ago, and now, even with the 8-8 season, they're still in disarray from the outside looking in.

Also, I suppose that's proof that parity (when it comes to the playoffs, at least) only exists in the NFC.

[FiddySicks]

So, did Cutler tear his MCL running out of the tunnell before the game? If not, what's his excuse for completely sucking before the injury? Before he got hurt, there were a TON of times where he had a wide open receiver and pretty much threw the ball into the fourth row. The MCL tear explains why he left, and shows that he didn't just pull a Colt McCoy, which is what I thought was happening. But it still doesn't excuse him from playing like a backup JV quarterback to that point.

[rams80]

from "The Penalty Box" forum:

Last 10 NFC Super Bowl Representatives:

● St. Louis Rams ● XXXVI

● Tampa Bay Buccaneers ● XXXVII

● Carolina Panthers ● XXXVIII

● Philadelphia Eagles ● XXXIX

● Seattle Seahawks ● XL

● Chicago Bears ● XLI

● New York Giants ● XLII

● Arizona Cardinals ● XLIII

● New Orleans Saints ● XLIV

● Green Bay Packers ● XLV

This is the first time in the Super Bowl era that either league/conference sent ten different teams to the Super Bowl in a ten year stretch.

In this same time period, the AFC has only sent four teams:

● New England Patriots ● XXXVI ● XXXVIII ● XXXIX ● XLII

● Pittsburgh Steelers ● XL ● XLIII ● XLV

● Indianapolis Colts ● XLI ● XLIV

● Oakland Raiders ● XXXVII

How amusing is it to see the Raiders on that list?

Makes their fall from grace seem so much more astounding. That franchise was really good not too long ago, and now, even with the 8-8 season, they're still in disarray from the outside looking in.

Also, I suppose that's proof that parity (when it comes to the playoffs, at least) only exists in the NFC.

You want to know what's even more crazy? Dallas and San Francisco aren't on the list.

[slapshot]

I believe you should be a true fan to one team in a sport (and a bandwagon fan to anyone playing your rivals).

Why is that? I'm curious to hear your reasoning on the matter.

It's pretty simple actually.

If you have two teams you are "truly" a fan of, who do you root for when they play each other? The fact is, either you actually have loyalty to one team, or you're a very shallow sports fan and just like having your cake and eating it too. IMO, you can't truly appreciate the success of a team as a fan unless you are a true fan. This doesn't mean you're not allowed to align yourself with any or all the teams you want, just my opinion.

Interesting. I'm curious to see your opinion on this. I'm not trying to give you a hard time or start an argument. I just want to see how you'd handle these situations.

First and foremost I am a Cleveland Browns fan. That said, I also like the Packers enough to consider myself a fan of the team. When the Browns play the Packers there's no question who I root for, it's the Browns. Since I also consider myself a bit of a Packers fan, does that mean I'm not a "true" Browns fan? Does it make me "a very shallow sports fan?" Let's say the Packers win the Super Bowl in two weeks. Does that mean if the Browns finally get it together and win a Super Bowl that I won't appreciate it as much as I would have if I didn't like the Packers?

As I said, I consider myself first and foremost a Browns fan but I also really like the Packers. I believe that liking the Packers does not in any way affect my "status" as a hard core Cleveland Browns fan. So what's the verdict?

This may be a better test for your "theory." I am an alumnus of both Ohio State and THE University of Toledo. As such I consider myself a fan of both. Based on your theory, despite the fact that I have plenty of justification to be a fan of both, I have to choose one and ditch the other. Any suggestions on which one I should drop?

T-shirts seen around Boston:

"I'm a fan of 2 teams: The Red Sox, and whoever is playing the Yankees"

[DEAD!]

from "The Penalty Box" forum:

Last 10 NFC Super Bowl Representatives:

● St. Louis Rams ● XXXVI

● Tampa Bay Buccaneers ● XXXVII

● Carolina Panthers ● XXXVIII

● Philadelphia Eagles ● XXXIX

● Seattle Seahawks ● XL

● Chicago Bears ● XLI

● New York Giants ● XLII

● Arizona Cardinals ● XLIII

● New Orleans Saints ● XLIV

● Green Bay Packers ● XLV

This is the first time in the Super Bowl era that either league/conference sent ten different teams to the Super Bowl in a ten year stretch.

In this same time period, the AFC has only sent four teams:

● New England Patriots ● XXXVI ● XXXVIII ● XXXIX ● XLII

● Pittsburgh Steelers ● XL ● XLIII ● XLV

● Indianapolis Colts ● XLI ● XLIV

● Oakland Raiders ● XXXVII

How amusing is it to see the Raiders on that list?

... and had it not been for the "tuck rule", they could have been there TWICE... (or the Steelers four times)

[Kevin W.]

T-shirts seen around Boston:

"I'm a fan of 2 teams: The Red Sox, and whoever is playing the Yankees"

That second part applies to everyone who doesn't root for the Yankees.

[RedRenesis]

from "The Penalty Box" forum:

Last 10 NFC Super Bowl Representatives:

● St. Louis Rams ● XXXVI

● Tampa Bay Buccaneers ● XXXVII

● Carolina Panthers ● XXXVIII

● Philadelphia Eagles ● XXXIX

● Seattle Seahawks ● XL

● Chicago Bears ● XLI

● New York Giants ● XLII

● Arizona Cardinals ● XLIII

● New Orleans Saints ● XLIV

● Green Bay Packers ● XLV

This is the first time in the Super Bowl era that either league/conference sent ten different teams to the Super Bowl in a ten year stretch.

In this same time period, the AFC has only sent four teams:

● New England Patriots ● XXXVI ● XXXVIII ● XXXIX ● XLII

● Pittsburgh Steelers ● XL ● XLIII ● XLV

● Indianapolis Colts ● XLI ● XLIV

● Oakland Raiders ● XXXVII

How amusing is it to see the Raiders on that list?

Makes their fall from grace seem so much more astounding. That franchise was really good not too long ago, and now, even with the 8-8 season, they're still in disarray from the outside looking in.

Also, I suppose that's proof that parity (when it comes to the playoffs, at least) only exists in the NFC.

You want to know what's even more crazy? Dallas and San Francisco aren't on the list.

It really speaks to the dominance of those two teams, Dallas more specifically that between the both of them they made thirteen Super Bowl appearances and neither has appeared since the thirtieth game.

[DDR]

I believe you should be a true fan to one team in a sport (and a bandwagon fan to anyone playing your rivals).

Why is that? I'm curious to hear your reasoning on the matter.

It's pretty simple actually.

If you have two teams you are "truly" a fan of, who do you root for when they play each other? The fact is, either you actually have loyalty to one team, or you're a very shallow sports fan and just like having your cake and eating it too. IMO, you can't truly appreciate the success of a team as a fan unless you are a true fan. This doesn't mean you're not allowed to align yourself with any or all the teams you want, just my opinion.

Interesting. I'm curious to see your opinion on this. I'm not trying to give you a hard time or start an argument. I just want to see how you'd handle these situations.

First and foremost I am a Cleveland Browns fan. That said, I also like the Packers enough to consider myself a fan of the team. When the Browns play the Packers there's no question who I root for, it's the Browns. Since I also consider myself a bit of a Packers fan, does that mean I'm not a "true" Browns fan? Does it make me "a very shallow sports fan?" Let's say the Packers win the Super Bowl in two weeks. Does that mean if the Browns finally get it together and win a Super Bowl that I won't appreciate it as much as I would have if I didn't like the Packers?

As I said, I consider myself first and foremost a Browns fan but I also really like the Packers. I believe that liking the Packers does not in any way affect my "status" as a hard core Cleveland Browns fan. So what's the verdict?

This may be a better test for your "theory." I am an alumnus of both Ohio State and THE University of Toledo. As such I consider myself a fan of both. Based on your theory, despite the fact that I have plenty of justification to be a fan of both, I have to choose one and ditch the other. Any suggestions on which one I should drop?

T-shirts seen around Boston:

"I'm a fan of 2 teams: The Red Sox, and whoever is playing the Yankees"

That's pretty similar to a line from a song called "South Side Irish," basically a theme song of sorts for Irish-Catholics from the south side of Chicago.

"And when it comes to baseball, we've got two favorite clubs; the Go-Go White Sox...and whoever plays the Cubs."

[Gothamite]

NFC CHAMPIONS!!!!!

Congratulations, patna.

If them cheeseheads win the whole shebang, I might have to shoot on up the highway to holla at a playa.

(Oh and Discrim, if you out there anywhere...congrats to you too, homeboy. Oh--and Gothamite, as well.)

Thanks, Buc. Right Gentlemanly of you.

[Jigga]

If nothing else think this entire episode just serves to confirm three things we've known for a long ass time:

1) Most football players are stupid.

2) Stupid people should not tweet.

3) Playing football hurts.

You forgot one; all coaches are geniuses who know way more about stuff than we do.

Sure, that's certainly true, but this Cutler episode didn't confirm that...nothing Lovie Smith does confirms that.

[The_Admiral]

Todd Collins, Backup Quarterback was a terrible move. Cutler vetoed the signing of Marc Bulger, and then Angelo not only did no better than a guy who was all but retired but then put him ahead of Caleb Hanie, who sucks, but at least doesn't totally suck. What the hell. Bears are dumb.

[infrared41]

If nothing else think this entire episode just serves to confirm three things we've known for a long ass time:

1) Most football players are stupid.

2) Stupid people should not tweet.

3) Playing football hurts.

You forgot one; all coaches are geniuses who know way more about stuff than we do.

Sure, that's certainly true, but this Cutler episode didn't confirm that...nothing Lovie Smith does confirms that.

I know but it never hurts to remind people how smart and important coaches are. They can do no wrong you know.

[DEAD!]

Wow, TODD Collins is still in the NFL? I will not doubt Cutler's toughness, but I will question his ability to get the Bears to the Super Bowl. Time to bring back Rex Grossman

[The_Admiral]

Let's not forget what a horrid offensive line Cutler has been behind. He did the best he could with such little protection all year long.

[illwauk]

Well, that's just Chicago playoff luck. Cubs playing football.

Hey, at least you guys have a Super Bowl title to look back on.

That was 25 years ago. A lot of Bears fans are looking back on something they weren't alive for.

lol at the mixed-pejorative upthread where someone I've never seen here before referred to the complaining of "hayseed FIBs." Most Bears fans live by large shopping malls and larger traffic jams. Hayseed Illinoisans are the ones who would sell their souls for the return of the Chief Illiniwek dance. Either I've underestimated the cosmopolitan sophistication of Fond Du Lac, or someone's just playing Word Darts.

Well there's your problem. Everyone knows the epicenter of Midwestern class and refinement is Waupun

I have a friend who's not a big NFL fan, only watches the Super Bowl every year because it's a big social event and he likes the party. But before each Super Bowl, he picks who he wants to win by looking at each team's cheerleaders and rooting for the team with the hottest ones (in his opinion)...

So my question is - is this the first Super Bowl where neither team has a cheerleading squad?

The Packers techically don't have a cheerleading squad, they use cheerleaders from UWGB.

BTW I am sure in the early days teams did not have cheerleaders. The Colts were the first team to use cheerleaders and the Cowboys made it popular.

Actually, IIRC, the Packers switch off between the UWGB cheerleaders and the squad at St. Norbert College for each home game. Although they did have their own "professional" cheerleaders for most years between 1950 and 1986.

[Cujo]

ESPN: Lovie Smith says Cutler has knee sprain

Is there a difference between a knee sprain and a knee tear? I'm far from an expert, and all these reports are getting kind of confusing.

[The_Admiral]

Sprains are tears. Why not call it a tear?