Field Gulls - Super Bowl XLVIIThe stupidest name in smart football analysis.https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/50215/fieldgulls-fav.png2013-02-03T18:53:32-08:00http://www.fieldgulls.com/rss/stream/37119152013-02-03T18:53:32-08:002013-02-03T18:53:32-08:00Ravens vs. 49ers open game thread II
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/iKXIdZzkmxUoTu0VaxtjmdTSkjw=/3x0:3996x2662/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/7573631/20130202_lbm_al2_124.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>SUPER BOWL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<iframe src="https://www.fieldgulls.com/videos/iframe?id=187" frameborder="0" seamless="true" marginwidth="0" mozallowfullscreen="true" webkitallowfullscreen="true" name="187-chorus-video-iframe"></iframe>
https://www.fieldgulls.com/game_threads/2013/2/3/3947896/super-bowl-2013-ravens-vs-49ers-open-game-thread-iiDanny Kelly2013-02-03T15:00:07-08:002013-02-03T15:00:07-08:00Ravens vs. 49ers Open game thread I
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/sIdeRoyGluUDKx_y5bHjZiNRhnQ=/0x0:4000x2667/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/7569983/160483075.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Christian Petersen</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Wanna talk about the game? Here's your place.</p>
https://www.fieldgulls.com/game_threads/2013/2/3/3947656/super-bowl-2013-ravens-vs-49ers-open-game-thread-iDanny Kelly2013-02-03T08:51:15-08:002013-02-03T08:51:15-08:00Super Bowl 2013: Kickoff, start time & TV info
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/FeM2Iv4_44GGicJwPcD5QhNkb6A=/140x278:3790x2711/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/7568473/160559764.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Ronald Martinez</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Big Game. </p> <p>Well, it's finally here. After two weeks of revelry and a Russell Wilson media takeover, Super Bowl Sunday is upon us. I would be lying if I told you that I was particularly excited for the game - I am still a little bitter that the Seahawks' season is over and even more bitter that the 49ers are still alive, but that's the nature of fandom.</p>
<p>Still, I'll watch the game, and I'll appreciate just how good both of these teams are. The Niners look better on paper, but the Ravens have beaten some of the NFL's elite on their march to New Orleans - first dispatching Peyton Manning and the Broncos and then moving past Tom Brady and the Patriots, with both games on the road, so I actually do think that anything can happen.</p>
<p>I'm sure you're planning on watching, so here's what you need to know:</p>
<p><b>Teams:</b> Baltimore Ravens vs. San Francisco 49ers<br><b> Kickoff time:</b> 3:30p.m. PST / 6:30p.m. EST <br><b> Location:</b> Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana<br><b> Channel: </b>CBS<br><b> Announcers: </b>Jim Nantz and Phil Simms<br><b> Current odds:</b> 49ers favored by 3.5 (All odds are updated here)<br><b> Halftime show performance:</b> Beyonce<br><b> National anthem:</b> Alicia Keys</p>
<p>The<a href="http://www.fieldgulls.com/" target="_blank"> <b><i>Field Gulls front page</i></b></a> is Super Bowl optimized today so make sure you head over there to check out all our stories on the game -- I'm proud of all of the in-depth analysis we've done on the Super Bowl since Seattle lost to Atlanta, all despite our unenviable position of seeing a hated divisional rival get to enjoy the two weeks knowing they'd be playing for the Lombardi Trophy. Bunch of goddamn professionals, this lot. </p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><i>Follow </i><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/FieldGulls"><i>@FieldGulls on Twitter</i></a><i> | Like</i><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Field-Gulls/342124675774"><i> </i></a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/fieldgulls"><i>Field Gulls on Facebook</i></a> </span></p>
https://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/2/3/3947524/super-bowl-2013-kickoff-start-time-tv-information-for-ravens-vs-49ers-xlviiDanny Kelly2013-02-02T09:40:33-08:002013-02-02T09:40:33-08:00Super Bowl 2013 point-spread analysis
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/CGapzGcPjtpWIguZyyMm2jJaT0Q=/652x220:3999x2451/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/7520103/20130202_jla_al2_020.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Everybody loves Raymond. Right? Especially this week. Especially on these pages.</p>
<p>Only he's not quite Raymond. He's Ray. Ray Anthony Lewis, but it's close enough, Goddammit.</p>
<p>Lewis's (back)story is and has been but one to be scrutinised since his Ravens booked their place in <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/super-bowl">Super Bowl XLVII</a>, but one I won't be dwelling upon here. It's too murky, too grubby and doesn't look pretty in print or pink. I write ‘his Ravens' because they are and it doesn't seem to flatter him. I invite debate on that score because <span>Ed Reed</span> and <span>Terrell Suggs</span> are more influential on the playing field, but Lewis is the heartbeat, the talisman, the undisputed leader of the defense. Of the whole team.</p>
<p><span>Peyton Manning</span>, <span>Tom Brady</span> and <span>Drew Brees</span> (each of whom boast at least one championship ring) have ‘their' teams and it's an exclusive band that <span>Russell Wilson</span> looks destined to become a part of. <span>Richard Sherman</span> may be on lead vocals, but Wilson will provide the rhythm and the tempo (and his army of friends will make him buddy rich). Not a bad name that, Wilson, to possess when mulling over matters on the west coast of America with a musical connotation.</p>
<p>Clearly, and unashamedly, I digress from matters Super Bowl, but I had to somehow crowbar Wilson into this post in a context that isn't associated with Pistol and read-option offenses. Job done. On to N'Awlins.</p>
<p>So, how you all been? Bit up and down, I guess, but more up hopefully than on the morning of January 14. Those of you who read <a href="http://www.fieldgulls.com/nfl-odds/2013/1/11/3864454/nfl-odds-playoffs-divisional-round-seahawks-at-falcons-point-spread" target="_blank">my </a><a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/atlanta-falcons" class="sbn-auto-link">Falcons</a> preview on Divisional Playoff weekend (and once again, I must thank you both) may recall that January 13 just happened to be my birthday, but never in my 41 years (allowing for not having birthday memories before the age of, say, eight) have I woken up on January 14 wishing my birthday had never happened.</p>
<p>As diabolical as I felt during the hours after the 30-28 reversal to Atlanta, reading about it the next day was unparalleled misery. However, as was noted all over Field Gulls throughout the ensuing week, this is the brightest it's possible to feel after a loss so dispiriting. Seattle is a desirable destination for free agents, we're a young, highly skilled, hungry team and we have the Draft to further bolster what is already a young, highly skilled...you know where I'm going with this.</p>
<p>Lamentably, with the Super Bowl upon us, events necessitate this to be a <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.fieldgulls.com/">Seahawks</a>-free post and exacerbating that is the need to write about, of all teams, the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.ninersnation.com/">San Francisco 49ers</a>; I've not wanted a team to lose a Super Bowl this badly since February 5, 2006. However, all bias aside (an almost impossible task), do the Niners represent value against the spread?</p>
<p>As soon as the Ravens iced the W in Foxboro two weeks ago, San Fran opened as a 5 point favourite, a line that was quickly bet down to 3.5 and one that's remained largely intact, bar the fact that the Ravens are available +4 at Boylesports.com as I write this on Wednesday evening.</p>
<p>I've recently introduced the musings of one Walter Cherepinsky to these proceedings and it'd be otiose of me to omit him this week, of all weeks. Walter runs <a href="http://walterfootball.com/" target="_blank">walterfootball.com </a>and is, to me, as intriguing as the script for ‘Episode VII' and despite him enduring a diabolical streak on the first two weekends of the playoffs, I was visiting his site daily. It's difficult not to despite him not being to everybody's taste.</p>
<p>Ol' Walt does a fine line in self-deprecation and never, ever did he demonstrate this more adroitly than when addressing his betting demons before Championship Game weekend with this: 'Yeah, I stink. I admitted as much two weeks ago when I said, "I don't know what the hell I'm doing" and "I'm at a loss. My confidence is completely shaken. Like I said, if I pick one team, I know the other will cover. I just know it."'</p>
<p>Walt takes Baltimore +3.5 yet his pick isn't what caught my eye. Far from it. No, what he gives us is a couple of superlative stats, veritable golden tickets for those unsure whether to take the plunge on the underdog Ravens on Sunday. Here goes:</p>
<p>1...The team that is the better seed (if applicable) is 1-12-2 ATS in the Super Bowl since 1996.</p>
<p>2...Teams that played in the wild card round and advanced to the Super Bowl are 7-0 ATS since 2003.</p>
<p>(Lump on Baltimore, it seems. What can possibly go wrong...?)</p>
<p>I can't get enough of information like that and to tip my hat to our partners at <a href="http://www.oddsshark.com/" target="_blank">oddsshark.com</a> (Ravens +3.5), they offer us these trends:</p>
<p>1...The underdog is 8-3 ATS in the past 11 Super Bowls</p>
<p>2...NFC is 4-1 SU and 5-0 ATS in the past 5 Super Bowls</p>
<p>3...49ers are 8-1-1 SU in their last 10 games as the favourite</p>
<p>While all of these lines appeal to the traditional bettor, the prop bets available are both incalculable and a mite irresistible. To list even half would be folly so I'll include some examples here, considering both the sublime and the ridiculous:</p>
<p>*Which Harbaugh brother will be shown first during the game? EVENS (or 1-1) while a split screen shot is 4-1/Will any player on the respective active rosters be arrested before the game? Yes 5-1/Will Beyonce be joined by Jay-Z on stage during the Half Time Show? Yes 11-10, No 2-3/Will any player be flagged for excessive celebration in the game? Yes 9-4, No 2-7/Race to 10 points...Ravens 11-10, 49ers 5-7, Neither 30-1.</p>
<p>That's the briefest of snapshots to how crazy the betting world becomes during Super Bowl week and there's not much you can't bet on. I may partake in a couple of the more sporting prop bets on offer and quite like the value available for *<span>Bernard Pierce</span> to score the first touchdown at 20-1. Sure, he's hardly the trendy pick, but it's an attractive price, especially for a couple of quid just for the purposes of interest.</p>
<p>One not-so-innocuous event on Super Bowl Sunday that does generate considerable interest is the coin toss. Prior to last year when the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.patspulpit.com/">New England Patriots</a> won the flip, the NFC had won the toss for 14 Super Bowls in a row, a remarkably ridiculous occurrence. *The odds on each team this year? The same for both, as it is for heads or tails. Naturally.</p>
<p>*All odds courtesy of <a href="http://www.oddsshark.com/" target="_blank">oddsshark.com</a></p>
<p>What's honestly not to like about Baltimore on Sunday? Why isn't it the height of taking advantage of someone's philanthropic nature being able to bet on the Ravens while receiving a four point cushion? They're fresh off breaking the hearts of two future first ballot Hall of Fame quarterbacks, leaving behind, in Denver and Foxboro, desires of what might have been accomplished in New Orleans this Sunday. And therein lies the rub. Baltimore went up against the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.milehighreport.com/">Broncos</a> and Patriots, in their respective opponents' backyards and not only covered the spread, but disposed of each SU playing tough, physical football. If they covered the spread with comparative ease in Denver (+9), they positively smashed the spread into oblivion in Foxboro (+8).</p>
<p>The 49ers are cut from the same cloth and what awaits us on Sunday could materialise into a battle of attrition. The mere mention of that word is known to precipitate agitation amongst football fans, particularly those raised in a time when the thought of a running back being taken first overall in the Draft is anathema.</p>
<p>For my money, give me a game of smashmouth football Monday to Sunday. (Hmmm, perhaps that should be Sunday to Sunday).</p>
<p>Anyhow, I'd just turned 17 when our beloved 49ers took on the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.cincyjungle.com/">Cincinnati Bengals</a> in Super Bowl XXIII in Miami and sat mesmerised as the curtain descended on the opening two quarters with the score tied at 3-3, the first half time tie in Super Bowl history. Should anything remotely similar unfold on Sunday, there'll be nobody happier than yours truly.</p>
<p>I wrote above, somewhat glibly, of the Ravens going this deep into the playoffs by virtue of playing tough, physical football. Evidence of just how tough, how physical, was borne out in the AFC Championship Game, backed up by two startling stats.</p>
<p>New England boasted the highest scoring offense during the regular season, scoring 557 points over 16 games (34.8 PPG), yet Baltimore, who statistically ranked 17th against the pass and 20th against the run, blanked them 21-0 in the second half. In addition, the Patriots scored 1 touchdown on 5 possessions inside the Ravens' 25 yard line. However, they aren't the two startling stats. No, what's more astonishing is:</p>
<p>Before the AFC Championship, New England held a 72-1 record at home under Bill Belichick when leading at half time and 67-0 when Tom Brady had been his QB. Thus, their 13-7 lead at the half made them the most cast iron certainties since Goliath. You know the rest. And what's truly mind blowing, not to mention utterly majestic is...</p>
<p>...only twice in NFL postseason history has a team won when the opposition's run 87 plays against them. When do you suppose that happened? What if I told you that it was against the Ravens by both the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.stampedeblue.com/">Colts</a> and Broncos during this very postseason. To then go to New England and win by 15 points when the Patriots ran a further 82 plays will prove to San Francisco that these <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.baltimorebeatdown.com/">Baltimore Ravens</a> simply don't tire and they'd have had two weeks' rest come kickoff on Sunday.</p>
<p>The Niners will look to pound the ball on the Ravens and a darn sight more than Denver or New England managed (I can't include the Colts here as they didn't truly test the AFC Champion despite the aforementioned 87 plays they ran).</p>
<p>San Fran will doubtless look to utilise the Pistol formation, an offensive strategy that's been analysed and addressed quite wonderfully on Field Gulls and SB Nation these past few weeks by, amongst others, Danny and Chris B. Brown. I couldn't even wish to equal their dissection, suffice to say that, according to NFL research (and Danny has already brought you these figures), the 49ers operated out of the Pistol 45.3 percent of the time against the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/">Packers</a> and 54.9 percent of the time against the Falcons.</p>
<p>Considering that the Niners ran just five option plays (8.9 percent) against the Seahawks in Week 16, it appears that the 42-13 shellacking they received in Seattle helped shape their offensive philosophy once the playoffs rolled around. It's nigh on impossible to imagine that they won't be somewhere near the 40 percent mark against Baltimore unless, of course, that's what they want the Ravens to believe. If any coach in the NFL should know Jim Harbaugh's coaching idiosyncrasies, *it's his brother John so, Seattle (and you Baltimore) fans everywhere will watch in hope that John The Raven has helped prepare his defense for every eventuality, half through necessity and half through instinct.</p>
<p>*Pete Carroll can also lay fair claim to knowing Jim the Niner's coaching foibles better than anybody.</p>
<p>Upon researching this a little more, Jim began his ‘if-it-wasn't-for-you-pesky-kids' routine last Sunday when declaring that he "wouldn't categorise" <span>Colin Kaepernick</span> as a read-option quarterback.</p>
<p>Jim, as a Seahawk, I'm far from your biggest fan and that will only ever change should you eventually replace Carroll in Seattle, but, begrudgingly, I admire the job you've done in San Francisco as two deep playoff runs in consecutive seasons (particularly with Alex Smith under center for most of it) is fine work. However, even I, as a damn Limey who adores this sport from afar, would safely categorise Kaepernick as a read-option quarterback. He just is. And he's pretty, pretty, pretty good at it.</p>
<p>John, he's using an old Jedi mind trick. His mind powers shouldn't work on you.</p>
<p>The focus lavished upon Kaepernick shouldn't surprise anybody and Russell Wilson would've invited exactly the same level of scrutiny had the Seahawks prevailed in the NFC playoffs.</p>
<p>The quarterback on the opposite side was flying somewhat under the radar in comparison despite throwing for eight touchdowns and zero interceptions during the postseason. Until his old man chimed in.</p>
<p>Spectacularly, Steve Flacco, Joe's father, chose this week to deliver an odd aside to the New York Times when saying of his son, "Joe is dull. As dull as he's portrayed in the media, he's that dull. He is dull." Should that have been Steve's attempt at a motivational masterstroke, then I admire his chutzpah, but Joe's already come out fighting it seems, opting to use the term "retarded" when discussing the NFL's decision to play Super Bowl XLVIII in New Jersey next February, placing players at the mercy of the elements.</p>
<p>Any opprobrium directed Joe's way is probably understandable, but let's forgive him his flippancy on this occasion.</p>
<p>Commandeering an offense that toppled those marshaled by Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, Flacco's thus far defied every one of his critics and it's to his eternal credit to have got this far; he possesses the required nous to circumnavigate San Francisco's defense, as good as they are. Flacco's far from alone though and his supporting cast at running back enables him to set up nicely the play-action pass, where <span>Torrey Smith</span> then comes into his own.</p>
<p><span>Ray Rice</span> is, naturally, the workhorse back, but complementing him is rookie Bernard Pierce, a player I like a lot. Pierce offers a nice change of pace and after averaging 4.9 YPA on 108 carries during the regular season, didn't shirk his duties when called upon during the playoffs, averaging a further 6.3 YPC. He was barely used against the Broncos, but Rice had a big game that day and carried the ground game for 131 yards on 30 carries in Denver.</p>
<p>Pierce's play was highlighted in the win over the Patriots when, with 2:32 left in the third quarter, the Ravens faced 3rd & 2 at New England's 36 yard line. Pierce took the ball 9 yards to the Patriots' 25, whereupon Phil Simms said, "What a set of eyes this Pierce has." The piercing kind, I'm guessing, Phil.</p>
<p>As of Saturday morning here in London, precisely 36 hours from kickoff, Baltimore's still available +4, a line I'm betting on as the Ravens have everything they need to win this from scratch. It won't be easy to watch for those with money riding on the AFC representative, but when is it ever in the NFL? OK, some games are easy, but only in hindsight and if you were to go back to wild card weekend, it's amazing to consider how many experts, journalists or even expert journalists had the Bengals primed to leave Baltimore with the W and head on to the Divisional round.</p>
<p>The unpredictability surrounding games is but one reason I love the NFL and betting on the NFL. There's a myriad amount of reasons to lament the end of the Super Bowl and thus the end of the season and not being able to bet on football for another seven months is right up there.</p>
<p>Both the head and the heart find the allure of the Ravens too much to resist on Sunday, but if the 49ers do end up the world champion, it'll only spur on the Seahawks even more next season and that's about all we can ask for should the Lombardi trophy head west.</p>
<p>Please gamble responsibly, for the final time this season. It's been an absolute pleasure.</p>
<p><i>In addition to contributing here, Rob runs his own blog, </i><a href="http://nflyard.blogspot.com/"><i>Rob's NFL Yard</i></a><i> and contributes at </i><a href="http://www.thenflinjuryreport.com/"><i>The NFL Injury Report, </i></a><i>so make sure you head over to those sites and check out more of his work. </i></p>
<p><i>Follow </i><a href="https://twitter.com/RobDaviesNFL"><i>@RobDaviesNFL on Twitter</i></a><i> | Follow </i><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/FieldGulls"><i>@FieldGulls on Twitter</i></a><i> | Like </i><a href="https://www.facebook.com/fieldgulls"><i>Field Gulls on Facebook</i></a></p>
https://www.fieldgulls.com/nfl-odds/2013/2/2/3944354/super-bowl-2013-odds-ravens-49ers-xlvii-point-spread-analysisRob Davies2013-01-29T09:39:41-08:002013-01-29T09:39:41-08:00What happened to the dynasty?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dS6kPT2h-DW-EzzAK9F3ogKfHwQ=/0x146:4000x2813/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/7298011/20130129_rvr_sx1_027.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>John David Mercer-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The milkman, the paper boy, an NFL dynasty. Did they go away, or are they merely hiding?</p> <p><a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/">Packers</a>-Packers-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.ganggreennation.com/">Jets</a>-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.arrowheadpride.com/">Chiefs</a>-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.stampedeblue.com/">Colts</a>-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/">Cowboys</a>-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.thephinsider.com/">Dolphins</a>-Dolphins-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/">Steelers</a>-Steelers-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/oakland-raiders">Raiders</a>-Cowboys-Steelers-Steelers-Raiders-Niners-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/washington-redskins">Redskins</a>-Raiders-Niners-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.windycitygridiron.com/">Bears</a>-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.bigblueview.com/">Giants</a>-Redskins-Niners-Niners-Giants-Redskins-Cowboys-Cowboys-Niners-Cowboys-Packers-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.milehighreport.com/">Broncos</a>-Broncos-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/st-louis-rams">Rams</a>-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.baltimorebeatdown.com/">Ravens</a>-Pats-Bucs-Pats-Pats-Steelers-Colts-Giants-Steelers-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/">Saints</a>-Packers-Giants</p>
<p>It appropriately started out with a repeat. The Packers beat the Chiefs in 1966 and then followed it up with an upset of the Raiders in 1967. If they hadn't, we might be playing for the Stram Trophy instead of the Lombardi, and "Stram" just sounds like something you wouldn't want to get on your junk. "Jimmy? I heard he got the stram!" But it was Vince Lombardi and Bart Starr that kicked off the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/super-bowl">Super Bowl</a> era, and they did it with back-to-back wins, setting off the first "Super Bowl dynasty" and leading into many more.</p>
<p>What you see above is something I am working on. I wouldn't call it a "parlor trick" necessarily, because anybody that spends a little bit of time practicing can do it, but I would like to name all 46 (soon 47) champions in chronological order and in under 30 seconds. Luckily, there's one aspect of this practice that makes it even a little bit easier, and its the simple fact that we have had eight back-to-back champions in NFL history. Interestingly, we have never seen a 3-peat. We saw a C-3PO in space and a 3J on Family Matters and a Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift, but never seen an NFL team win three championships in a row. Still, there's a pattern in the champions that makes this exercise easier than you might imagine, easier than naming the presidents.</p>
<p>Such as the fact that it starts with a repeat, and then if you can make it to the Dolphins, you know that it's another repeat, followed by a Steelers repeat, and then soon followed by another Steelers repeat. Or that the Redskins follow the Giants twice. Or that, simply put, much like "the 1%", eight teams have combined for 33 of the 46 championships:</p>
<p><a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.patspulpit.com/">Patriots</a>, Redskins, Raiders, Giants, Packers, 49ers, Cowboys, Steelers. If the 49ers win again this week, that means that 72.3% of all NFL championships will reside with one of these eight teams. While it's kind of sad and sort of puts "NFL parity" into perspective, many have said that we simply don't see that kind of dominance anymore and the championships are spread around. Is that actually true though?</p>
<p>After the Giants won the 1986 Super Bowl, their first championship in franchise history, it wouldn't be until the Broncos in 1997 that another team won their first championship in franchise history. During that time, the Redskins won two championships, the Giants won again in 1990, the 49ers won three championships and the Cowboys won three championships. And then when the Broncos won in 1997, they themselves had a repeat the following year. And even then, were the Broncos a long-time loser or was it just finally their time? Let's not forget that Denver went to the Super Bowl three times between 1986 and 1989. (Between 1986 and 1993, only the Broncos (3 times), <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.buffalorumblings.com/">Bills</a> (4 times) and <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.cincyjungle.com/">Bengals</a> represented the AFC in the Super Bowl.)</p>
<p>Indeed, certain teams held court in the NFL for a long period of time and they were truly dominating teams that seemed to really show an imbalance of talent. The Cowboys weren't just good when they won three championships between 1992 and 1995, they were very much the best team in the NFL. As I went over yesterday, we have seen more "average" teams win the Super Bowl like the Giants, or imbalanced teams like the Saints or Colts.</p>
<p>Seven of the last 12 NFL champs were ranked 15th or lower in total offense. Four of the last six have been ranked 17th or lower in scoring defense. It's not just a matter of there being more teams, we are just seeing more teams step up in the playoffs and win when it matters and "surprise" the league, though I think it's fair to say that certain teams like the 2010 Packers might have been the best in the league even if they did go 10-6.</p>
<p>Frankly, the 2012 <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.ninersnation.com/">San Francisco 49ers</a>, if they win, might be the "best" team to win the Super Bowl since the 2004 Patriots. However, just because there have been more surprise teams in recent years, does that mean that we have moved away from seeing NFL "dynasties"? I'm not so sure.</p>
<p>Let's not forget that the Giants have won two of the last five Super Bowls, even if they didn't look like good teams. Or that the Steelers have been to the Super Bowl in three of the last seven years. Or that if weren't for the Giants, the Patriots would have won five of the last eleven Super Bowls. (Though to be fair, if it weren't for upsets, the Pats wouldn't have won in 2001.) New England has been stunned in each of the last two Super Bowls they played in, but otherwise, the Patriots of this century have an argument of being the greatest dynasty in NFL history. Under Bill Belichick, the Pats are 151-57 in the regular season, 17-7 in the playoffs, and have won 5 AFC titles.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that they are better than the Steelers of the 70's, the 49ers of the 80's, or the Cowboys of the 90's, I'm just saying that they have an argument. A good one. And they are making that argument right now over the last 12 years. I understand that there have been surprises over the last decade and that there was a time between 1999-2002 that four straight franchises won their first Super Bowl, but look closer:</p>
<p>Since 2002, only the Saints have won their first championship in franchise history. And three teams have won two Super Bowls over the last nine years. As of today, 14 franchises are championship-less and 18 have at least one ring. That means that the majority of teams have had at least one, but still 14 remain in want and this year will make it 10 years since the Bucs won for the first time in their history. In that time, the Saints won and a bunch of other teams just added to their collection (though the Colts got to win in Indy) and I think that's worth noting.</p>
<p>Did the dynasty die? No, I think it's just done a good job of hiding itself for awhile. Which is good news for the next one: The <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.fieldgulls.com/">Seahawks</a> of the 10's.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.twitter.com/kennetharthurs" target="_blank"><b><i>Follow the Ken Dynasty on Twitter</i></b></a></p>
https://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/1/29/3928800/super-bowl-2013-49ers-vs-ravens-nfl-dynastiesKenneth Arthur2013-01-28T11:50:07-08:002013-01-28T11:50:07-08:00Defense wins Super Bowls
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/04-S8aCkyT3eUt-RB9QVuXwIJmc=/390x307:3930x2667/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/7253191/20130121_jla_ak9_306.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To understand the Super Bowl, you must eat, sleep, and breathe Super Bowl. I've done that, so now what have I learned? </p> <p>If you have ever watched the Giants play a playoff game, you should know by now that we can't predict anything. Try as we might, who knows when <span>Eli Manning</span> is going to channel Peyton for a moment, or <span>David Tyree</span> and <span>Mario Manningham</span> become <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/super-bowl" class="sbn-auto-link">Super Bowl</a> legends. Just in case you had forgotten, or were just completely unaware, Tyree had four catches for 35 yards. "Well, that's not bad for the Super Bowl, fine gentleman!"</p>
<p>"No, that was during the regular season, kind sir!"</p>
<p><i>"Bullshit, motherf2#$@%!"</i></p>
<p>"Giants, man. Giants."</p>
<p>That is to say, once again, that the Super Bowl will be determined on Sunday and not by anything we say about it in the days leading up to it. Tyree had more yards in one game than he had during the entire season and made a catch that is arguably the best catch in the 46-game history of the Super Bowl. It wasn't <span>Victor Cruz</span> or <span>Hakeem Nicks</span> that made the most memorable catch of Super Bowl XLVI, but Manningham, the guy that finished fourth on his own team in yardage. When the <a href="https://www.baltimorebeatdown.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Ravens</a> meet the <a href="https://www.ninersnation.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">49ers</a> to decide who is the "best" for the 2012 season, we have no idea what is going to happen and Baltimore has already defied odds to make this far, they only have to win one more game. That's it. Why do I bring all of this up?</p>
<p>Well, I spent several days last week compiling stats, rankings, info, and more on the entire history of the Super Bowl. I looked over all 92 participants, the coaches, the quarterbacks, the offense and defenses, and even DVOA. I kept adding new stats, averaged them out, compiled a very large Excel spreadsheet because I remain determined to find out what makes a Super Bowl champion. When I told this to Danny Kelly, he just wanted to me to tell him why the Ravens would beat the Niners. What hope do they have? What are the facts that favor Baltimore. And my best answer for that is:</p>
<p><i>Well, look at David Tyree and the Giants!</i></p>
<p>Because in reality, almost everything favors San Francisco. Right now I see a Ravens upset as one that will be on par with the 1968 Jets, the 1980 Raiders, the 2001 Patriots, or the 2007 and 2011 Giants. Almost nothing is going in the favor of Baltimore right now as I see it after hours and hours of research. The best hope I can give anyone that wants to see the Niners lose is that sometimes upsets happen, that Any Given Sunday isn't just the original story of Colin Kaepernick and Alex Smith, and other cliches about expecting the unexpected. After all, six of the last seven Super Bowl winners had a worse regular season record than their opponent. For as long as this league saw almost nothing but one dynasty leading into the next, with championships shared by teams like the 49ers, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys, Steelers, Dolphins, or Raiders, we have parity now unlike anything we've ever seen.</p>
<p>It <i>used </i>to be that the league had a dominating team and that team won the Super Bowl more often than not. Today we don't see that nearly as often and if anything, the <a href="https://www.fieldgulls.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Seahawks</a> blew their chance at a championship when they decided to become the best team in the NFL. Look at the Giants, you should really be mediocre or simply plain good! As an example of that, look no further than point differential.</p>
<p>We heard Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders tell us that blowout victories actually were somewhat predictive of a team being great. Even if you're playing a bad team, winning by 30+ is still significant. Never did this prove more true than between 1989 and 2000, when every single NFL champion was ranked either 1st or 2nd in point differential. The 2011 <a href="https://www.bigblueview.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">New York Giants</a> were actually the first team in NFL history to make the Super Bowl after being outscored during the regular season, while the 2008 <a href="https://www.revengeofthebirds.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Cardinals</a> had a point differential of +0.1 points per game.</p>
<p>It's less often now that you see that kind of dominance make it all the way to the championship, with just three of the last nine Super Bowl winners ranked 1st or 2nd in point differential. The 2001 Patriots were 7th, the 2003 Patriots were 6th, the 2005 Steelers were 5th, the 2006 <a href="https://www.stampedeblue.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Colts</a> were 9th, the 2007 Giants were 13th, the 2008 Steelers were 5th, and the 2011 Giants were 19th. Nothing like the dominating teams of the 90's, like the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/st-louis-rams" class="sbn-auto-link">Rams</a>, <a href="https://www.milehighreport.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Broncos</a>, <a href="https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Packers</a>, Cowboys, Niners, Redskins, and Giants Super Bowl-winning teams that rolled through the regular season. Then they got to the Super Bowl and usually faced a tam that was very, very good, but not great.</p>
<p>Those <a href="https://www.buffalorumblings.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Bills</a> that lost four Super Bowls in a row really had their best shot in 1990 when they were 1st in point differential (+10.3) but subsequent Buffalo teams really weren't great on defense and when Scott Norwood was wide right on a 47-yard field goal attempt, that ended the franchise's best chance at a championship. After the Bills run, we had teams lose the Super Bowl with quarterbacks like Stan Humphries, Neil O'Donnell, <span>Drew Bledsoe</span>, Chris Chandler, <span>Steve McNair</span>, and <span>Kerry Collins</span>. Forgettable players and "good not great" players. The point being that there was a significant talent gap between the winners and losers and that consistently decided the outcome before the game was started. It's not the case anymore.</p>
<p>Right now, the Ravens are the over-achieving band of "you shouldn't be here" odds breakers and the 49ers are the dominating team that certainly looked like the best team in the NFL at certain points in time this season. If this were 1995, I'd almost certainly expect San Francisco to win 33-10, but the balance of power really seems more balanced these days. Maybe Baltimore isn't "supposed" to be here, but they did go through the Broncos and Patriots, the only two respectable AFC teams, to get this far and it's reasonable that they could win one more game. But it would still be an upset, and a significant one at that. Here are some facts and figures that may be of some interest to you that will show why that's the case and maybe even some numbers that could help Seattle as they try to build a Super Bowl team of their own.</p>
<p><b>Defense > Offense</b></p>
<p>It's one thing to just say that defense wins football games and it's another to back it up with numbers. "Hey ladies, I make $75,000 a year!" "Okay Kenny, show us your pay stubs" say the ladies as I quietly exit stage right.</p>
<p>Well, defense wins Super Bowls. Here is why. These are the average offense and defensive scoring numbers for Super Bowl teams:</p>
<p>Super Bowl Winner: 25.59 points per game, 15.86 points per game allowed</p>
<p>Super Bowl Loser: 25.67 points per game, 17.00 points per game allowed</p>
<p>During the regular season, the team that loses the Super Bowl actually scores slightly more often than the champion. However, they allow a much more significant 1.14 points per game on average than the winning team. That number continues to hold up in other statistics. The Total Defense of the Super Bowl loser is ranked 9.41 in the NFL on average, while the Total Defense of the winning team is ranked 6.5 on average.</p>
<p>The champion of the league is ranked almost 3 spots higher on average than the losing team. That's really bad news for Baltimore. The Ravens were 12th in scoring defense and 17th in total defense while the 49ers were 2nd in scoring defense and 3rd in total defense. If Baltimore won the Super Bowl, they would be the 7th-lowest ranked team by total defense to do so.</p>
<p><b>Lowest-Ranked Total D to Win Super Bowl</b></p>
<p>2011 Giants - 27th</p>
<p>2009 <a href="https://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Saints</a> - 25th</p>
<p>2001 Patriots - 24th</p>
<p>2006 Colts - 21st</p>
<p>1976 Raiders - 18th</p>
<p>1987 Redskins - 18th</p>
<p><b>Lowest-Ranked Scoring D to Win Super Bowl</b></p>
<p>2011 Giants - 25th</p>
<p>2006 Colts - 23rd</p>
<p>2009 Saints - 20th</p>
<p>2007 Giants - 17th</p>
<p>1983 Raiders - 13th</p>
<p>1976 Raiders - 12th</p>
<p>The Ravens allow 21.5 points per game, and only five teams have ever won the Super Bowl after allowing at least 20 points per game in the regular season. However, Baltimore scores just 24.9 points per game and most of those other teams with bad defenses also had a stellar offense. The closest comp in that respect would be the 2007 Giants that scored 23.3 points per game and allowed 21.9 points per game and then went on to beat the 16-0 Patriots.</p>
<p>And if a game like that happens again, you can expect <span>Tandon Doss</span> to make some incredible play that becomes instant legend.</p>
<p>These numbers hold up when talking about DVOA, as well. Super Bowl winners and Super Bowl losers are near equals in offensive DVOA. On average, they are both ranked ~7th on offense. However, the Super Bowl winner is ranked about 8.7th on defense, while the loser was ranked 11.6th on D. When almost everything is equal except for one category, it's probably worth noting the importance of that category. And it might be even more important since DVOA only goes back to 1991 and were aren't counting the less significant games, the ones that included players like Len Dawson and people were still referring to a pass as a "forward pass".</p>
<p>The 49ers were 2nd in defensive DVOA, while the Ravens were only 19th.</p>
<p>Baltimore has strides to make when it comes to overcoming San Francsico on Sunday, but perhaps none is more important than their notable differences on defense. It's enough to make me want the Seahawks to only focus on that side of the ball forever and ever. Defense really does win championships.</p>
<p>- Since 1990, teams ranked 1st or 2nd in scoring defense are 10-2 in the Super Bowl. Both losses (2010 Packers over Steelers, 2004 Patriots over <a href="https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Eagles</a>) came to a team that was also ranked 1st or 2nd in scoring defense. Overall, teams ranked 1st or 2nd in scoring defense are 22-11.</p>
<p>- 11 Super Bowl losers were ranked outside of the top 10 in scoring defense, compared to six Super Bowl winners.</p>
<p>- The 2011 Giants 25.0 points per game allowed was the worst scoring defense to win the Super Bowl. The 2000 Ravens 10.3 points per game allowed was the best. Those Ravens also scored 20.8 points per game on offense, the lowest-ever for a Super Bowl champion.</p>
<p>- 31 of 46 Super Bowl winners had a top 5 scoring defense. 23 of 46 Super Bowl losers had a top 5 scoring defense. 30 Super Bowl winners had a top 5 total defense. 18 losers were top 5 in total defense.</p>
<p>- 7 Super Bowl winners were 1st in total rush defense, compared to 5 Super Bowl losers. 25 winners were top 5 in that category and 36 were top 10. 20 losers were top 5 in rush defense and 32 were top 10. 6 winners were ranked 1st in yards per carry allowed, 29 were top 10. 5 losers were ranked 1st, 23 were top 10.</p>
<p>- Pass defense might be more significant than rush defense. Only 3 Super Bowl losers had the top ranked pass defense, and just 11 were in the top 5. But 8 Super Bowl winners were the top-ranked pass defense and 18 in the top 5. How about yards per attempt, which might be more telling?</p>
<p>- 9 Super Bowl winners were ranked 1st in Net Yards per Pass Attempt allowed, 30 were top 5. 5 Super Bowl losers (what I am calling "Super Losers") were ranked 1st in that category and 17 were top 5.</p>
<p>I should have guessed that after spending dozens of hours on Super Bowl research that I wouldn't be able to put it all into one article, and I think that "Defense wins championships" is a good place to start and finish today. Not to mention that I am simultaneously writing a similar article for SBNation/NFL based on my research. Perhaps this is some food for thought to chew on with less than a week until the last game of the season. If you have any questions or theories about what I have done or just want to know what champion had the most turnovers in the playoffs the year that they won it all (the 1975 Steelers had 12 before they even got to the Super Bowl) or other interesting facts (the 1983 Redskins had an unfathomable +43 turnover differential and still lost the Super Bowl. Seeing "+43" was the only time I audibly said "Holy shit" during my research. I probably thought "holy shit" several times but every now and then you can't even control the words that are coming out of my mouth.)</p>
<p>We got a whole week of Super Bowl talk ahead, even if you despise the two teams playing and just want the Ravens to run over San Francisco, or perhaps you want the NFC West to get a title (?) or whatever, it's going to be unavoidable. All we know for certain is that the Ravens are a longshot, but that recent history has shown that longshots can win it too, and that the Giants screw up everything.</p>
<p>Six more days until it's officially the offseason, which is probably still the best news of all!</p>
<p><b><i><a target="_blank" href="http://www.twitter.com/kennetharthurs">Follow Ken on Twitter,</a> </i></b><b><i>don't be like all those people that unfollowed me this week.</i></b></p>
https://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/1/28/3925088/super-bowl-2013-49ers-vs-ravens-history-defense-wins-championshipsKenneth Arthur