Originally Posted by BroncoBuff
Well, it wasn't a "conference." That, plus the number of teams being double (16 then, 32 now), and I think the Chiefs are probably further along right now.
It's not the NAME Super Bowl that matters to me, it's that in the first of the three they didn't play the AFL champ, so yes jj, it fails. And the one from the 1920s, that's just too long ago, and rfaulk's Bulldogs? NOOOO! This is the 21st century dammit!
Redin, you have a point, but the 1960s just don't seem "prehistoric" to me ... your point: "(Those 60s Packers) are far closer in history to the '29-'31 threepeat than it is to today," you sound like one of those YouTube videos, "Martin Luther King and Anne Frank were the same age," or "Egyptian Queen Cleopatra lived much closer in time to Christopher Columbus than she did the building of the pyramids."
GUYS, I WAS 100% SERIOUS ABOUT THAT MAHOMES THEORY ... I think he might have a soft spot in his heart or something. I don't know if you guys heard, but after our game in Arrowhead, he commented to Sean Payton "you guys really got one," or something like that in reference to Nix. Sounds like a nice guy.
Something is kinda off about how CLOSE your game scores are, and yet you win every one The theory I'm percolating is - maybe, subconsciously maybe - he's SO good now, he's doing just enough to win. Bo freaking Nix' offense scored 45 more points this season than Mahomes. But you were 15-2 (15-1 really). Go figure.
Maybe he doesn't see any upside to humiliating opponents, so he's doing just enough to win. It MIGHT BE SUBCONSCIOUS, but it's something to think about.
|