First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    Imagine if the division winner of the NFC West ends the season 6-10 and gets into the playoffs on tiebreakers.  Then imagine they went on a run to win the Super Bowl.

    They'd finish 9-10, the first Super Bowl team with a losing record.

    If the Pats can't win it all, then this is what I want: endless laughter.  Thoughts?
    (yes, I know it's extremely unlikely)
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    If a team wins their division they deserve to be in the playoffs.
    If then they go on a run and win it all, good for them.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from flutie66. Show flutie66's posts

    Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    In Response to Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?:
    [QUOTE]Some would say "that is so wrong" IMO I like it. If you cant beat a losing team in the playoffs then you dont deserve the super bowl.
    Posted by MVPkilla4life[/QUOTE]

    would be hillarious.  kind of reminds me of the giants of 2007, they were terrible during the regular season, but the last 4 or 5 games they turned it on and ran thru the playoffs
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from lippa. Show lippa's posts

    Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    well if i remember corectly az almost did that in 08 with a 500 team or one game over 500 i forget
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    Did anyone think the 9 - 7 Giants of 2007 would have won it all?  You never know!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pauldeba. Show pauldeba's posts

    Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    "Imagine if the division winner of the NFC West ends the season 6-10 and gets into the playoffs on tiebreakers."

    Why would they need tiebreakers?  The division winner gets in, the tiebreakers would simply be against an equally awful 6-10 team
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    They'd finish 9-10, the first Super Bowl team with a losing record.

    Actually, they'd have to finish at 10-10 and break even. They would surely not get a bye at 6-10 and would need to play a wildcard game.

    Some would say "that is so wrong" IMO I like it. If you cant beat a losing team in the playoffs then you dont deserve the super bowl.

    Good point! Most likely a team that backed into the playoffs would be one and done. To get in like that they'd have to start 0-9 or something then get on a roll. Right or wrong, it is what it is. To win a SB you need to be able to beat anyone any day in the postseason. If the 6-10 team can beat 4 of the best in the league they deserve it!


    well if i remember corectly az almost did that in 08 with a 500 team or one game over 500 i forget

    They were 9-7 and won the west. After the SB they finished 11-8.

    Did anyone think the 9 - 7 Giants of 2007 would have won it all?  You never know!

    The Giants were 10-6, and almost won the last game against NE. But they had won like 8 of the last 9 before that, I believe. They lost most of their games early, and there was talk of Coughlin being fired.

    Why would they need tiebreakers?  The division winner gets in, the tiebreakers would simply be against an equally awful 6-10 team

    They'd still need the tiebreaker to see which pathetic team would win the division...and probably lose 10 draft positions to boot!

    Two 9-7 teams have made it, and the Vikings made it at 8-6. All three of those teams lost the SB. It's not likely to happen, but not impossible. I wonder what odds you'd get in Vegas on the 6-10 team running the table? I'm sure quite a few people would make some serious change if it ever did happen!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SShoreLurker. Show SShoreLurker's posts

    Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    Listen people.  There's only been a handful of 8-8 teams ever to make the playoffs.  9 in fact.  Of those 9, only 2 won a playoff game.

    Who cares what St. Louis and Seattle do.  They aren't going to take away a spot from anyone.   Tampa can't beat a winning team; Green Bay is injured and limping; NYGiants are up and down.  Besides St. Louis has been at or close to    .500 all year long. I think they are a young up and coming team.  Seattle is a fraud.

    FYI 9-7 Super Bowl Teams

    1979 LA Rams
    2008 Arizona

    Good teams rise to the top. always have always will.  Don't be fooled by seeding either.  While its adventagous to have home games and byes, its not automatic.

    Consider 2006 AFC Championship
    Indy and New England had to got to Baltimore and San Diego respectively to win the divisional round.   Both teams won hard fought road victories and persevered thru adversity.  Its not impossible.

    Consider 2007 NYGiants
    Road wins in Tampa Bay (let me remind you the Bucs were favored by more than a TD), in Dallas, and then in cold Green Bay. 


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SShoreLurker. Show SShoreLurker's posts

    Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    In Response to Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?:
    [QUOTE]They'd finish 9-10, the first Super Bowl team with a losing record. Actually, they'd have to finish at 10-10 and break even. They would surely not get a bye at 6-10 and would need to play a wildcard game. Some would say "that is so wrong" IMO I like it. If you cant beat a losing team in the playoffs then you dont deserve the super bowl. Good point! Most likely a team that backed into the playoffs would be one and done. To get in like that they'd have to start 0-9 or something then get on a roll. Right or wrong, it is what it is. To win a SB you need to be able to beat anyone any day in the postseason. If the 6-10 team can beat 4 of the best in the league they deserve it! well if i remember corectly az almost did that in 08 with a 500 team or one game over 500 i forget They were 9-7 and won the west. After the SB they finished 11-8. Did anyone think the 9 - 7 Giants of 2007 would have won it all?  You never know! The Giants were 10-6, and almost won the last game against NE. But they had won like 8 of the last 9 before that, I believe. They lost most of their games early, and there was talk of Coughlin being fired. Why would they need tiebreakers?  The division winner gets in, the tiebreakers would simply be against an equally awful 6-10 team They'd still need the tiebreaker to see which pathetic team would win the division...and probably lose 10 draft positions to boot! Two 9-7 teams have made it, and the Vikings made it at 8-6. All three of those teams lost the SB. It's not likely to happen, but not impossible. I wonder what odds you'd get in Vegas on the 6-10 team running the table? I'm sure quite a few people would make some serious change if it ever did happen!
    Posted by bubthegrub2[/QUOTE]


    Not true.  For the Record:
    Minnesota in Super Bowl years:
    1969- (12-2)
    1973- (12-2)
    1974- (10-4)
    1976- (11-2-1)
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: First Super Bowl team with a losing record?

    I'd throw money on the NFC West team at least winning their first game because they get a home game as the division winner.  Travel out west is tough.

    I don't know that they'd go all the way, or even beat one of the top two teams at their place though

    They'd have to win their wild card home game, hope the wild card on the other side wins and beats the #1 seed.  They'd have to beat the #2 seed.  They'd get the Championship Game at home because of the automatic #4 seed for division winner, which they could win.  Then they'd get the Super Bowl on neutral turf.
     

Share