GatewayRedbirds.com

Freed Roger wrote: But I don't think Sherman is wrong, all he's did was claim the obvious - the SF matchup was the tougher game for them and thus a tougher matchup -how in the world, in retrospect, wasn't it?

I took offene (as a Denver fan, obviously) to his statement that San Francisco was the second best team in the NFL. If he had simply said that San Francisco played a better game than Denver in their matchup........ well, duh!

The other thing that frustrates me about Sherman is that he can be SUCH a likeable guy! I loved his pre-SB interviews, and had almost completely forgiven him for his Crabtree tirade. Now he starts talking again......... and it's all about him. Argh.

JL21 wrote:To Socnorb's point, we always talk about baseball being a crapshoot and how even the best teams can get beat by the worst teams in a short series thanks to random variation. Well, football is even more like that. You're gauging teams based off of 16 game samples, plus a playoff game or two. [expletive], one of the cornerstones of NFL marketing revolves around that concept- "any given Sunday" and such.

I agree that the NFL has a lot of random variation, but it does NOT have more random variation than baseball. Baseball still has more, marketing slogans aside. I'm not saying flukish things can't happen in the NFL - they do - just not quite to the level of MLB.

Stark did his annual article again about how MLB has beeter parity than the NFL. Yes, despite not having a salary cap, MLB still has better parity. A couple that I found interesting:
* The Broncos, Colts, Ravens, Patriots or Steelers have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl 16 of the past 18 years.
* There are 6 NFL teams that have had losing seasons each of the past 5 years. There are only 2 MLB teams that have had losing seasons each of the past 5 years (Mets and Astros).
* 6 of the top 9 teams in payroll in MLB missed the playoffs last year, and 3 of the lowest 5 payroll teams MADE the playoffs (the two bottom-payroll teams that didn't were the Marlins and Astros - rebuilding).
* 11 different teams in the NFL have won the past 25 Super Bowls (meaning there are 21 teams haven't won it in that time). In MLB, 16 of 30 franchises have won at least 1 of the past 25 World Series.

Season-long parity and individual season strength aren't really the same as random variation or confidence in outcomes.

Socnorb11 wrote:

Freed Roger wrote: But I don't think Sherman is wrong, all he's did was claim the obvious - the SF matchup was the tougher game for them and thus a tougher matchup -how in the world, in retrospect, wasn't it?

I took offene (as a Denver fan, obviously) to his statement that San Francisco was the second best team in the NFL. If he had simply said that San Francisco played a better game than Denver in their matchup........ well, duh!

I didn't realized he added that bold part- it was in the link, but not in Rad's quote -so Radbird is to blamefor all our wasted time.

2d best team can be easily disputed. It's definitely a jackass thing to say, and not right about the teams for the seaon. SF as the best team they beat, the one fielded at the time they played them - I don't have a problem saying something like that -which is more what is implied by "SF was our SB"


My next entry: "How I became a spokesperson for Richard Sherman: A guy I hardly heard of, a short month ago"
---------------------------
I'm actually impressed that you can come on here Socnorb. Being a fan of the losing SB team is the worst. I did a full media blockout for at least a week after the Patriots Rams SB. And I'm still bitter about it, much more than 04 WS.
And this is even with being a bigger Card fan than Ramsfan, and sensing would Patriots would win ahead of time, and thinking Patriots deserved the win (I do think Patriots were better than Rams-even with the Bellicheating conspiracy). SB with the hype and bragging rights -I was more vested in it as a fan.

If I were you, Sherman's comments would piss me off - but I would have done my damndest to not even hear them in the first place.

JL21 wrote:Season-long parity and individual season strength aren't really the same as random variation or confidence in outcomes.

OK.

I still say MLB has more random variation and less confidence in who will win on any given day than football.

EDIT: but we are talking about playoffs. Season-long parity and individual season strength are what determines which teams make the playoffs and play in things like the Super Bowl.

I get the sentiment (avoiding media), Freed. To be honest, I haven't watched one second of ESPN since Sunday afternoon, and I almost always try to catch ATH and PTI every day (yeah, I know..... lame). When the NBC Nightly News started a segment about Seattles Super Bowl win last ngiht, I immediately changed the channel. I haven't read a single article about the Super Bowl.

I'm involved in this discussion at GRB for a few reasons:

1) This is my favorite "social media", and it's hard to avoid.

2) You guys are all usually pretty reasonable. Some of the guys at work have been beating me up pretty good over the SB, but you guys (while being opinionated), haven't been "in your face" over it.

3) I like that I'm able to "respond" to what I read in this thread. If I see something on Yahoo or ESPN, I'm pretty much at the mercy. At least here, I can voice a defense/opinion, whatever you want to call it. I'm at least able to be heard here. That helps the healing process, maybe?



I'm more passionate about the Broncos than anyone should be, really. I really take the losses hard, to the point that my wife has recently told me that I'd better learn to chill when they lose. For me, football seems a little harder. Because of the short seasons, EVERY game is critical. The "one and done" playoff system makes it incredibly hard to get to the Super Bowl.......... there really is no tomorrow. With the Cardinals, I almost take it for granted that they're going to have another shot to win the WS almost every year. They've been THAT good for the last 12 years. With the Broncos, playoff appearances, and especially Super Bowl victories, are rare, and therefore maybe more cherished.

Socnorb11 wrote:

Freed Roger wrote: But I don't think Sherman is wrong, all he's did was claim the obvious - the SF matchup was the tougher game for them and thus a tougher matchup -how in the world, in retrospect, wasn't it?

I took offene (as a Denver fan, obviously) to his statement that San Francisco was the second best team in the NFL. If he had simply said that San Francisco played a better game than Denver in their matchup........ well, duh!

To be fair, he was comparing playing the 49ers to playing the Vienna Boys Choir, so we have to cut him a little slack on the diplomacy thing.

jim wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

Freed Roger wrote: But I don't think Sherman is wrong, all he's did was claim the obvious - the SF matchup was the tougher game for them and thus a tougher matchup -how in the world, in retrospect, wasn't it?

I took offene (as a Denver fan, obviously) to his statement that San Francisco was the second best team in the NFL. If he had simply said that San Francisco played a better game than Denver in their matchup........ well, duh!

To be fair, he was comparing playing the 49ers to playing the Vienna Boys Choir, so we have to cut him a little slack on the diplomacy thing.

You're what.......... a Bears fan?

That's cute.

jim wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

Freed Roger wrote: But I don't think Sherman is wrong, all he's did was claim the obvious - the SF matchup was the tougher game for them and thus a tougher matchup -how in the world, in retrospect, wasn't it?

I took offene (as a Denver fan, obviously) to his statement that San Francisco was the second best team in the NFL. If he had simply said that San Francisco played a better game than Denver in their matchup........ well, duh!

To be fair, he was comparing playing the 49ers to playing the Vienna Boys Choir, so we have to cut him a little slack on the diplomacy thing.