|
I WANT TO BELIEVE 
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
i dont know
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Sorry, but this is Cam's Kaepernick moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
1:1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
probably okay
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Sorry, but this is Cam's Kaepernick moment. J E T S JETS JETS JETS
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
They're probably the best pick in the NFC for next year but maybe 15% I'd say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
P(1-cards, bitch)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
It's gonna be Patriots/Seahawks again and TFF will eat itself alive over it
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Packers/Colts and I'm gonna revel in TFF's bitching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Let's worry about the 2016 season first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
NC-17 posted:Let's worry about the 2016 season first. I would be worried about the 2016 season too if I was a Patriots fan ohohohohohohohoho
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I would be worried about the 2016 season too if I was a Patriots fan ohohohohohohohoho If there is a god the Broncos will somehow end up with Tebow starting for them next season
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Packers bitch
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:They're probably the best pick in the NFC for next year but maybe 15% I'd say. Probably the Seahawks though getting Benjamin back could be huge
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Michael Oher is a bad LT and also So low.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Probably not half bad. Panthers have won three straight NFC South crowns and Benjamin will at least fix one of the biggest concerns on offense. They are also in pretty good shape cap wise, though they will have to throw some of that at Josh Norman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
I'm not sure, Race Realists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
It's o bky 2756 and my wife wants to Wang but I think that you are kiddi if the bills aren't a good team. Ty autocorrected
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
it's Teddy Time, bitch
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Dubious posted:it's Teddy Time, bitch *throws as hard as I can, lands at Mike Wallace's feet fifteen yards downfield*
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
But is Cam HUMBLE ENOUGH to come back from this?? Don't read takes like this today folks
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Not good. The last time the team that lost the super bowl appeared in the next one was when the Bills lost 4 in a row.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
They are well positioned to return to the post season. That's about all you can predict.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Not much else to say that hasn't been said already in this thread! Most of our assets will be returning plus we'll have KB back, so we should be looking at another strong showing next year. Sucks that they lost, obviously hard to swallow but I'm still super proud of my cat team. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
On paper they are great, but football is so high variance you can't ever be sure of anything except that the Patriots will win the AFC East
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Ribsauce posted:On paper they are great, but football is so high variance you can't ever be sure of anything except that the Patriots will win the AFC East Hey! Don't lob factual statements at the Bills, Phins and Jets as if they're insults.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Carolina has a good enough team to make it to the post season again. Kelvin back will be a huge lift to the offense and if they can find another decent tackle things will go well. If they stay healthy they're a good chance but Seattle and Arizona will be right back in the mix along with Green bay, Minnesota and probably one of Dallas / Washington / Tampa
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
1 in 5 to win the NFC, so basically you cross off the 10 teams that have no chance and the other 6 go at it. You know who you are cross off teams.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:1 in 5 to win the NFC, so basically you cross off the 10 teams that have no chance and the other 6 go at it. You know who you are cross off teams. "not i!" scream four tiny voices from the nfc east crab bucket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
I can't help but shake the notion that the coaching staff really just did not prepare them for what they were in for. Nobody on the team will ever admit to it, but...It just seems like they got knocked back into their shells and never came back out. This is especially true of Newton who I think got scared out of his cleats and just could not rebound for it. Then you throw in some plays that could have broke their way but didn't and they just went to pieces. I really want to say the deficiency in handling them during the process was the fault of the coaches. I'm not saying fire riverboat Ron, but I sure hope they're examining that side of it or they're going to fumble it next year too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Just came across this article on the very same subject: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/2/10/10957748/carolina-panthers-2016-super-bowl-loser-hangover "Here is a sobering statistic for Panthers fans still licking their wounds from Super Bowl 50 and hoping next season will be better: No team in the past 43 seasons has lost the Super Bowl and come back to win it the next season. The 1972 Miami Dolphins were the last team to accomplish this. In addition, no team since the 1993 Buffalo Bills lost the Super Bowl and even made it back to the big game the following year. The Super Bowl loser's hangover is real."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
sample size problems
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
It's very hard to reach a Super Bowl, let alone 2 in a row. The Panthers don't have many major holes though outside WR and they are easily a playoff team unless something disastrous happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Fire Safety Doug posted:Just came across this article on the very same subject: I want to see how many teams have lost the Super Bowl then been back in the next one, pre-1993. Because I think it'd be a surprisingly high number, it just hasn't been done recently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Yeah the Super Bowl hangover is a dumb narrative. The last four Super Bowl losers all made it to the divisional round at least (two made it to the conference championship) the following year. They lost because they ran into better teams, not because of a game that happened twelve months prior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:I want to see how many teams have lost the Super Bowl then been back in the next one, pre-1993. From the article: "In the past 43 seasons, the loser of the Super Bowl has made it back to the game five times — 1974 Minnesota Vikings; 1987 Denver Broncos and the Bills in 1991, 1992 and 1993." The Cowboys and Dolphins both came back from a loss to win it, back to back in SBs V to VII. So that's seven comebacks in 50 games and two of them for a victory. http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Fire Safety Doug posted:From the article: "In the past 43 seasons, the loser of the Super Bowl has made it back to the game five times — 1974 Minnesota Vikings; 1987 Denver Broncos and the Bills in 1991, 1992 and 1993." So 14%. That's statistically significant. The hangover is generally real, but it's not a hard and fast rule.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Fire Safety Doug posted:Just came across this article on the very same subject: It'd be cool if the Panthers could repeat both things the 72 Dolphins did
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:So 14%. That's statistically significant. The hangover is generally real, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Intruder posted:It'd be cool if the Panthers could repeat both things the 72 Dolphins did 50 is really a tiny sample size, anyway, especially given the inherent randomness in an NFL season (I'm speaking mostly about injuries here, which can really gently caress up even a good team). Trends are something for the talking heads to yak about, but they really don't mean poo poo other than it's really hard to get to the Superbowl and win. It's a step up from discussing win/loss records while wearing certain uniforms, but not much of one. There are a couple of teams in the last decade or so that always seem to be in the postseason and that seems to be the way to win multiple Superbowls. Look at the last ten or fifteen years of the Patriots, they're constantly in the mix and they have a bunch of Superbowl appearances to show for it. The Steelers are another team that seems to always be in the postseason and they have two wins and one loss in the last ten years. That really isn't bad. Denver's been there a lot in the last five years or so, and they've got one loss and one win. To believe in the Superbowl hangover, you have to believe that one loss has some kind of magic effect that no other loss can possibly have. There's a lot of reasons teams end up worse after a good run; losing essential players to free agency or retirement, injuries, age, suspensions, Jed York, etc... I'd rank all of that way above a Superbowl hangover. How many times has the winner made it back? 11 times in 50 games, so 22%. Between them and the losers, that accounts for over 1/3 of all Superbowls played. The difference between losers and winners coming back the next year is 4 (which, with 50 samples is 8% and probably below the margin of error given the sample size). It doesn't actually mean much, because you don't have a baseline to compare it to. How often does the average team make the Superbowl? I don't have a loving clue, I'd need to be able to define the 'average' team, which wouldn't work because average teams rarely, if ever, make it to the Superbowl.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:30
|
|
