Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Do you think the 2001 team and 2010 team would beat this team?


 Share

Recommended Posts

2001 was in several games and found ways to lose at the end. 
 

2010 was the closest to this team in terms of offensive ineptitude.

Both teams however had foundational pieces. 01 actually had a ton of guys who were in the Super Bowl two years later. 10 still had smith and Stewart. 
 

I think we lose to 2001 by 7-10 points. The game with 2010 we might win half the time if we played them 10 times. 

Edited by BIGH2001
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BIGH2001 said:

2001 was in several games and found ways to lose at the end. 
 

2010 was the closest to this team in terms of offensive ineptitude.

Both teams however had foundational pieces. 01 actually had a ton of guys who were in the Super Bowl two years later. 10 still had smith and Stewart. 
 

I think we lose to 2001 by 7-10 points. The game with 2010 we might win half the time if we played them 10 times. 

The 2001 team was scrappy, but couldn't seal the deal at the end of games.  They didn't look like a one win team until the last couple of games when they clearly packed it in.  That '01 squad really could have been a 5 win team if they win several of the one score games that ended up as losses.  It wasn't a horrible roster, but Seifert's decision to discard Steve Beuerlein in favor of a new QB was the deal breaker.  If Steve was still the QB, I'm not saying playoffs, but at least a .500 team.

The common thread in all three seasons, rookie QBs who look bad, REALLY bad.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Carl Spackler said:

Don’t forget Moore threw 3 picks against NYG in the season opener.  He was not having an All-Pro season 

I always had a feeling that Moore regressed because he didn’t feel secure with the team drafting Clausen high in the draft. 
 

Could be wrong, but he looked like he was pressing instead of playing free the year before. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

I always had a feeling that Moore regressed because he didn’t feel secure with the team drafting Clausen high in the draft. 
 

Could be wrong, but he looked like he was pressing instead of playing free the year before. 
 

 

He also had an offseason of teams able to review what he did at the end of 2009, and he simply wasn't able to adjust. All three of his picks in Week 1 were awful, awful throws -- IIRC, all of them in field goal range too. Moore wasn't a terrible QB, but he just didn't have it then. And then in Week 2, we only scored 7 points. That's with two healthy All-Pro RBs, Steve Smith, etc.

Edited by Carl Spackler
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I see them using Brooks in the passing game a good bit even early.  
    • If Brooks is fully healed,and they think he is, then we should be better.  We upgraded center and Hunt will be back.   At RB, Rico will turn 28 next month. Hubbard turns 27 next month.  Brooks turns 23 in July.  If Brooks pans out, he was a better college RB than either Rico or Chuba. He has not been taking a beating for 2 years--so if the knee holds, we could have something.   This is what it says about RB: Career Average: Running backs have the shortest average careers in the NFL, lasting just 2.57 years on average. The Peak: Most running backs reach their absolute peak performance around age 25 or 26, with nearly all peak seasons occurring before age 29. The "Age 28-29" Cliff: Statistical data shows a notable 15% to 25% drop in per-game fantasy and offensive production as backs transition from their age-28 to age-29 seasons. Very few running backs sustain elite production past age 30.
    • I’ll give him that. I love his belief in the trenches being where games are decided. Because that is also my belief.  And he is not fooling around he jumps all over a goal. Fix the OL. Well it cost but he fixed it.  And fixed it again this year while still getting pieces for the defense.  He has made a couple of mistakes but just keeps swinging after a miss until he gets something done. 
×
×
  • Create New...