[k13]

I honestly cannot confirm this anywhere. I don't see how it matters a whole lot either way, if you're thinking this is where the dome field advantage comes in. The advantage comes from the controlled environment that favors the passing game.

I'm not sure either. I think real grass favours Pitt and the under. Turf GB and over.

So is it real grass or wtf? Its almost gametime.

[slacker00]

Thoughts on how Overrated the "Experience" Factor May Be.

The top thing I'm hearing on PITT's #1 angle is experience. ESPN, NFL Network, cappers, whomever; they're all saying experience will be the deciding factor. Is experience important? Yes. Would you rather have it than not? Of Course. But it is being hyped up as this end all be all advantage that cannot be overcome.

And by experience, I, and I assume others, mean Super Bowl experience. If we're talking just playoffs, McCarthy has played in the same # of playoff games as Tomlin, so it's not like McCarthy has no clue.

To address this, let's look at some recent past examples of experience vs. inexperience in the Super Bowl.

[snip]

Sure you can find a ton of teams with experience who won over the team with inexperience, but most, if not all, were favorites and significantly better than the other team. Not the case with GB/PITT.

Experience is overrated.

When we talk about experience, we're talking about playoff and Super Bowl experience taken together. Also, I'm not sure people are only considering McCarthy versus Tomlin, rather they are taking the team as a whole. Pittsburgh is in it's 3rd Super Bowl in 5 years, not to mention a lot of playoff experience beyond that. If you want a concrete metric for experience, I think it would be fair to count playoff games by player, Then you could see the tremendous disparity between Pittsburgh and Green Bay.

Now, if you are looking for Super Bowl dogs with superior experience, I'll make you a list.

2002 Bucs +3.5 over Raiders. Bucs had more playoff experience, especially considering they had Gruden.
1990 Giants +7 over Bills. Parcells had extensive playoff experience and a ring. He got another one as a dog.
1987 Redskins +3 over Broncos. Gibbs had extensive playoff experience and a ring. He got another one as a dog.
1983 Raiders +3 over Redskins. Raiders had 2 rings and an extensive playoff pedigree. They got one more.
1980 Raiders +3 over Eagles. Raiders had a ring and extensive playoff experience.
1972 Dolphins +2 over Redskins. This line amazes me. Dolphins were 16-0 and were in the previous Super Bowl.
1970 Colts +1 over Cowboys. Colts were in the previous Super Bowl.
1969 Chiefs +10. Chiefs were in a previous Super Bowl.


I only make this list to demonstrate how you are using your stats above while omitting similar stats that would prove your argument invalid. This is intellectually dishonest and I'm just showing your argument for what it is.

[Sunde91]

- 2002 Bucs made playoffs in 2001, 2000, 1999 with a record of 1-3 and 1 NFCCG. Raiders made playoffs in 2001 and 2000 with a 2-2 playoff record and 1 AFCCG. Bucs had more experience how?
- 1987 Broncos in the Super Bowl the year before > than a Super Bowl win 5 years ago
- 1983 ??? Redskins had just won it the year before.
- 1980 Raiders were in the playoffs for the first time since they last won it in 76. They had a different coach, different QB. Eagles made playoffs in 78 and 79 and had same coach and QB.


Dishonest? LOL.

1) I made a generalized statement that still holds to be true. Do I really have to make a list of the favs with experience vs. dogs with inexperience and compare it to favs with inexperience vs. dogs with experience to see which is >?

2) It is called capping. Find the most angles that support a side.

3) The angles will never be exclusive one way or the other. If the relevant cases of inexperience over experience are more profound, more recent, and support the side I already like, the point of showing cases of experience over inexperience from 1969 would be?

4) You come here with this air of objectivity/neutrality to prove my argument "invalid", when
a) you publicly display your PITT play above your avatar, making you an interested party yourself;
b) you give 4 bunk examples out of 8 with 3 of the other 4 not even recent within 40 years.

[slacker00]

- 2002 Bucs made playoffs in 2001, 2000, 1999 with a record of 1-3 and 1 NFCCG. Raiders made playoffs in 2001 and 2000 with a 2-2 playoff record and 1 AFCCG. Bucs had more experience how?
- 1987 Broncos in the Super Bowl the year before > than a Super Bowl win 5 years ago
- 1983 ??? Redskins had just won it the year before.
- 1980 Raiders were in the playoffs for the first time since they last won it in 76. They had a different coach, different QB. Eagles made playoffs in 78 and 79 and had same coach and QB.


Dishonest? LOL.

1) I made a generalized statement that still holds to be true. Do I really have to make a list of the favs with experience vs. dogs with inexperience and compare it to favs with inexperience vs. dogs with experience to see which is >?

2) It is called capping. Find the most angles that support a side.

3) The angles will never be exclusive one way or the other. If the relevant cases of inexperience over experience are more profound, more recent, and support the side I already like, the point of showing cases of experience over inexperience from 1969 would be?

4) You come here with this air of objectivity/neutrality to prove my argument "invalid", when
a) you publicly display your PITT play above your avatar, making you an interested party yourself;
b) you give 4 bunk examples out of 8 with 3 of the other 4 not even recent within 40 years.

DISHONEST!

You just did the exact same thing that I accused you of doing! You misquote stats to make your case.

Bucs were in 8 playoff games since 1997 leading up to the Super Bowl, Raiders had 6. Plus the Gruden factor.

1987, you take the Broncos SB loss as evidence, but ignore the Redskins 1983 SB loss entirely. Dishonest.

1983 The Raiders had won it two years prior and had tons of playoff experience beyond that. Redskins had one year.

1980 The Raiders were NOT in the playoffs for the first time since they won it in 1976. Your claim is dishonest.

Sometimes you take coaching experience as evidence, sometimes you ignore it. Dishonest.


If this is what you call handicapping, it's what I call dishonesty. The rest of your arguments are just as dishonest.

[slacker00]

you publicly display your PITT play above your avatar, making you an interested party yourself

This is an example of honesty. I don't hide what I am. I put it all out there for everyone to see and make their own opinion.

[Scorpion]

This is an example of honesty. I don't hide what I am. I put it all out there for everyone to see and make their own opinion.

BINGO!

[Sunde91]

It's clear you're just a troll throwing baseless words like "dishonest" around in some pathetic attempt to defame me. According to you, all cappers must be dishonest for not committing to full disclosure showing 100% of the facts on both sides.

- 2002: Is 8 playoff games so much > 6 that it's a worthy example of experience vs. inexperience? Are you kidding me? Tampa's QB, Brad Johnson, didn't even come to Tampa until 2001 and you're counting (2) playoff games Tampa had back in 1997 when Gruden wasn't even a HC anywhere at the time...kid, you're a joke. BUNK.

- 1987: WTF are you talking about? WASH won SB in 82, lost in 83. Broncos just played in one in 86. We're talking about EXPERIENCE VS. INEXPERIENCE. Broncos have experience if they just played in the SB the year before, making it a BUNK example.

- 1983: Umm, again, the topic is experience vs. inexperience. Please explain how a team (WASH) that had just WON the Super Bowl the year prior magically becomes inexperienced in their 2nd consecutive Super Bowl. BUNK.

- 1980: Excuse me, I was mistaken, as the Raiders were in the playoffs in 77. I would still love for you to explain how a coach/QB/team with no SB experience, and no playoff experience in 3 years, is somehow more experienced than a coach/QB/team with no SB experience, but has playoff experience the prior 2 seasons.

And no, you being on PITT is evidence you are an intersted party arguing in favor of the team you bet on, just like I am, and are in no position to take some hold of the objective/neutral overseer of facts (especially when you distort them in the manner you clearly have done here).

[Scorpion]

It's clear you're just a troll throwing baseless words like "dishonest" around in some pathetic attempt to defame me. .

This idiot called me a troll too
Any poster who does not agree with his ******* pick he calls him a troll

get a life

Stupid asshole, you are ******* pathetic

[Scorpion]

Can't read your mind and guess your idiotic arguments pal

[slacker00]

According to you, all cappers must be dishonest for not committing to full disclosure showing 100% of the facts on both sides.

I've never met a handicapper that does what you are doing. You are simply dishonestly perverting the facts. I've been on SBR for over 5 years with over 6k posts and have met some of the lowest of lowlifes and stupidest of idiots and I've never called anyone dishonest before. I've never met such a weasel that will so blatently distort the facts and refuse to admit it when called out. That's called dishonesty.

Heck, I even got caught up in the BOS ponzi scheme through raiders7272, but I never felt any ill will, I knew what I was getting myself into. Same with half the other banter on here. I know what these guys are. But with you, it's almost like you aren't communicating, you are touting. I think touting is the lowest of the lowlifes in this business, but the craziest part is that you don't seem to be shilling. WTF are you doing here anyway? If you've got an angle on a game, why do you need to lie about it?

[slacker00]

- 1980: Excuse me, I was mistaken, as the Raiders were in the playoffs in 77. I would still love for you to explain how a coach/QB/team with no SB experience, and no playoff experience in 3 years, is somehow more experienced than a coach/QB/team with no SB experience, but has playoff experience the prior 2 seasons.

Players who started for the Raiders for both Super Bowl seasons 1976 and 1980:

LT Art Shell, LG Gene Upshaw, C Dave Dalby, FB Van Eegen, WR Cliff Branch, DE John Matuzak, LB Ted Hendricks, P Ray Guy

The core players had already been to the Super Bowl and won it.

In the meantime (77, 78, 79) the Raiders were 1-1 in the playoffs while the Eagles were 1-2. So, you are saying, that the Super Bowl winning pedigree vanished when Madden left the team? Why don't you make that same argument concerning Gruden leaving the Raiders prior to the 2002 season? It's because you are a hypocrite.

If you insist, I might flesh out those other 3 games for you, but I doubt it will help. By your logic, you probably would like to suggest that GB actually is the more experienced team because they've played in 4 playoffs games in the last two years while the Steelers have only played in 2 playoff games in the last two years. Again, since you admit to being dishonest, it makes your communication incoherent because we don't know what standard you represent because you are always changing the standard to suit your argument. This is called dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[Sunde91]

Show me one thing I have said in this thread that isn't true that I haven't admitted to or an example of me touting. If not, GTFO, you hack.

I was addressing the overblown angle of experience and merely said it was overrated by pointing to examples where inexperience trumped experience. And then I made a truthful, generalized side note that most of the teams with experience who beat inexperience were also the better team/favs. So then you thought you proved that "invalid" by naming a mere 4 examples that point to the contrary, and that I was "dishonest" for not mentioning them, as if it's my fuking responsibility to take into account every single Super Bowl.

And, yeah, I don't admit I'm wrong when I just said

I was mistaken

in my last post At least you have conceded 4 of those 8 examples you listed to be bunk

[slacker00]

Show me one thing I have said in this thread that isn't true that I haven't admitted to or an example of me touting. If not, GTFO, you hack.

You said that losing Madden was a liability to the Raiders in the 1980 case, but losing Gruden wasn't in 2002.

as if it's my fuking responsibility to take into account every single Super Bowl.

So, you are admitting that you did a terrible analysis of your own trend regarding Super Bowls? If you don't accurately take into account what you are assessing, how can anyone take you seriously? Are you admitting that you don't expect to be taken seriously?

At least you have conceded 4 of those 8 examples you listed to be bunk

I didn't concede anything.

[36mafia]

lol slacker

you cummin off as a giant fuckface here

[slacker00]

- 2002: Is 8 playoff games so much > 6 that it's a worthy example of experience vs. inexperience? Are you kidding me? Tampa's QB, Brad Johnson, didn't even come to Tampa until 2001 and you're counting (2) playoff games Tampa had back in 1997 when Gruden wasn't even a HC anywhere at the time...kid, you're a joke. BUNK.

You were trying to claim that the 1980 Eagles Raiders SuperBowl based on a similar (albeit false) margin. Hypocrite.

DT Warren Sapp, RB Mike Alstott, SS John Lynch, LB Derrick Brooks, CB Ronde Barber, LB Al Singleton, LB Shelton Quarles were all there from 1997. Also, will you ever get around to comparing John Gruden's playoff experience versus Bill Callahan's playoff experience as a HC?

[slacker00]

- 1987: WTF are you talking about? WASH won SB in 82, lost in 83. Broncos just played in one in 86. We're talking about EXPERIENCE VS. INEXPERIENCE. Broncos have experience if they just played in the SB the year before, making it a BUNK example.

It's easy math. Two Super Bowls going 1-1 versus one Superbowl going 0-1. Who has more experience? It's seems simple enough.

[slacker00]

lol slacker

you cummin off as a giant fuckface here

Pretty much.

[slacker00]

- 1983: Umm, again, the topic is experience vs. inexperience. Please explain how a team (WASH) that had just WON the Super Bowl the year prior magically becomes inexperienced in their 2nd consecutive Super Bowl. BUNK.

I already explained this. Raiders were only a couple years removed from their ring, plus they had more playoff experience in the interim. Do the math.

[Sunde91]

It's easy math. Two Super Bowls going 1-1 versus one Superbowl going 0-1. Who has more experience? It's seems simple enough.

Mr. Distoring the Facts himself. The issue isn't who has more experience, the issue is experience vs. inexperience, i.e. no experience. Broncos are not inexperienced if they had just played in the Super Bowl the year prior. Period.

You said that losing Madden was a liability to the Raiders in the 1980 case, but losing Gruden wasn't in 2002.

I never said that, nor implied it.

You used the 76 SB Champ Raiders as evidence of Super Bowl experience for the 80 Raiders when they didn't even have the same coach, QB, or a significant portion of their team. You listed what, 8 players, including the punter, who carried over and used it as evidence of the team in general having experience? Brilliant.

Gruden never had Super Bowl experience as HC until 2002. I should have thrown the 2002 example out from the start as the issue is SUPER BOWL experience, and neither Tampa nor Oakland (recently) had it. But considering zero SB experience, the recent playoff experience for both teams was comparable and experience vs. inexperience was therefore not even applicable with playoff experience, let alone Super Bowl, which was zero.

And 2002 Oakland had the same 4x Raider Pro Bowler QB, Rich Gannon, and largely most of the same team, for all their playoff games leading up to SB. 1980 Oakland did not.


So, you are admitting that you did a terrible analysis of your own trend regarding Super Bowls? If you don't accurately take into account what you are assessing, how can anyone take you seriously? Are you admitting that you don't expect to be taken seriously?

if by terrible analysis you mean not listing and breaking down all 44 Super Bowls, then yeah, terrible

But was my intent? My intent was to attempt to show experience is overrated. To do this, I don't have to breakdown every single Super Bowl, but just provide enough convincing examples that leaves it reasonable to believe it's overrated.

Am I on fuking trial here? I don't have shit to prove to you, pal.


I didn't concede anything.

So you won't admit you're wrong? Cause I've provided ample evidence that shows you are.

Enough feeding the trolls for one day. Good luck with your play

[shari91]

Thanks for taking the time to provide the writeup Sunde. It's nice to see someone put some effort into explaining why they've chosen a side in such a big game.

[slacker00]

Thoughts on how Overrated the "Experience" Factor May Be.

.
.
.

The issue isn't who has more experience

So, now you are actually contradicting your own thesis statement that started this whole exchange. I'm done. This is hopeless.

[Sunde91]

Thanks to Shari and the others.

I believe/hope the ML will begin to come down some now. Pinny ML to -147 from -151 and should continue.

[Sunde91]

So much for ML coming down, but GB ML is the play.

God speed men.

[gshock1]

Excellent right up... I'm on the Packers as well. Good luck!

[GunShard]

Congrats Sunde91 on your Packers play! My Over 44 was also the correct play!