Super bowl matchup

[ACES 13]

Being the GOAT doesn't endear me to an individual. Didn't like Michael Jordan much either.

Fair enough.

[RiverDog]

It was an epic collapse. It was also an epic comeback by probably the greatest QB since Otto Graham. I'm also very interested to see what Belichick does once Brady retires (hint: I don't think it'll look anything like now), but none of that changes what I said.

F*** Tom Brady.

I'm not going to go that overboard, but like you, I personally do not care very much for Tom Brady. I don't like his sideline tantrums and I didn't like how he responded to Deflate Gate by destroying key evidence....and please, don't act like some Pats fans I debated and give me a legal explanation about being innocent until proven guilty, it was his property and he can do with it as he pleases, blah blah blah. It wasn't a court of law. If I had behaved like that during a company investigation there is no doubt in my mind that I would have been fired.

As far as Belichik goes, he played without Brady for the first 4 games this season and went 3-1. He also went 11-5 in 2008 when Brady sustained a season ending knee injury in the opener, replacing him with an inexperienced backup that had thrown all of 33 passes in college and never did anything after that one season when Brady went down. He's by far the most successful coach in this century and arguably the best ever. He's not an innovator like Paul Brown, Tom Landry, or Bill Walsh, but he knows like none of his contemporaries how to maintain success in the modern era of parity, salary caps, and free agency.

[NorthHawk]

That's close to my thoughts on Brady, too.
And it's why I didn't think he should be a serious candidate for MVP. How can you be MVP when the team wins without you?
Best player during the year would be a solid contender as he had a great year so I'm glad it went to Ryan.

[Hawktawk]

For all the legitimate talk about New England and Tom Brady's heroics Sunday the biggest story of the game was Atlanta's utter ineptitude in the final 23 minutes of regulation.

I uncovered a staggering fact researching this game. From the point Atlanta obtained a 25 point lead with 8 to play in the 3rd they ran the ball exactly FIVE TIMES the rest of the game.
The Pats tied the game with a minute left. I'm no mathematician but I would bet had they simply run the ball on virtually every play and punted if necessary the clock would have been expended long before NE could have scored 25 points.
Beyond that they repeatedly snapped the ball with 10 to 20 seconds left on the play clock.

The strip sack occurred because Shanahan called for a deep drop on 3rd and 1!!! with Freeman running in off the sidelines replacing an injured Coleman and immediately being asked to pass block.
The 12 yard loss from the 22 when running a deep drop slow developing play in easy FG range was even more inexplicable as was the decision to pass the following play when still in makeable field goal range and with a perfect setup for a draw.

Shanahan should have been fired by the 9ers before he was officially hired after that second half. I feel a lot better about facing him twice a year after watching that debacle.

I'm not sure who should feel worse.
Seattle clawing back to almost get the win or Atlanta literally suffering the worst collapse in playoff history since the Frank Reich led Bills overcame a 31 -3 halftime deficit vs Houston in the AFC title game many years ago.

I think its Atlanta that should feel worse.

[NorthHawk]

Yup, Atlanta considering they had what looked to be a firm grasp of the trophy only to let it slip out of their hands.
However, it can be rationalized by saying it's their first time with a young team. I doubt that mitigates the hurt, but there is a not so disastrous side if you are a total optimist.
On the other hand, we were on the verge of consecutive Super Bowl wins only to have a bad play call stymie our efforts. It might have been worse for us as the players know how to win, but were tripped up by bad a call the Pats Defense had practiced against and were prepared for.

[Uppercut]

Why hasn't there been the usual moaning in the media and other teams about Falcons not getting a chance after NE scored a TD in OT? When Sea beat GB in the NFCCG they moaned loudly as they did the next season when we beat Denver the same way. Now its SILENCE

[obiken]

Why hasn't there been the usual moaning in the media and other teams about Falcons not getting a chance after NE scored a TD in OT? When Sea beat GB in the NFCCG they moaned loudly as they did the next season when we beat Denver the same way. Now its SILENCE

I agree with them that both sides should get the ball TD or FG, what I DO NOT WANT is CFB overtime, it sucks.

[obiken]

River, Tom Landry, in-spite of the fact that I was born to hate the Dallas Cowboys, has to be the #1 for innovation. He invented the 4-3, the Flex, and QB's not having to call their own plays.

[NorthHawk]

Why hasn't there been the usual moaning in the media and other teams about Falcons not getting a chance after NE scored a TD in OT? When Sea beat GB in the NFCCG they moaned loudly as they did the next season when we beat Denver the same way. Now its SILENCE

I read a couple of articles that mentioned it, but no wave of support.
With such an important game, both teams should have a chance.
The NFL should be on board because they could have possibly sold another few advertisement segments if it wasn't a 4 and out.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I've seen a couple of those articles, but I don't agree with those who are upset about the opposing team not getting a chance on offense if the receiving teams scores a TD on the first possession of overtime. The opposing defense has 75 yards to limit the offense to a FG; if they can't do that, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them.

Granted, Atlanta's defense was notably tired come overtime, but Atlanta's offense had a 25-point lead and didn't do a very good job salting away the clock in regulation. Atlanta winning the coin toss in OT might have netted a win, assuming they receive and get a TD, and, alternatively, it may have given their defense enough rest to stop NE had they not made a FG or come up with nothing, but that's not a compelling enough argument for me to rally against OT as it is now.

Also, the groaning when Seattle did to both Denver and Green Bay that year was that Peyton Manning and Aaron Rogers, two of the league's sweetheart elites, didn't get a chance to win. They had their fair share in regulation to do that. Again, no sympathy.

[mykc14]

I've seen a couple of those articles, but I don't agree with those who are upset about the opposing team not getting a chance on offense if the receiving teams scores a TD on the first possession of overtime. The opposing defense has 75 yards to limit the offense to a FG; if they can't do that, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them.

Granted, Atlanta's defense was notably tired come overtime, but Atlanta's offense had a 25-point lead and didn't do a very good job salting away the clock in regulation. Atlanta winning the coin toss in OT might have netted a win, assuming they receive and get a TD, and, alternatively, it may have given their defense enough rest to stop NE had they not made a FG or come up with nothing, but that's not a compelling enough argument for me to rally against OT as it is now.

Also, the groaning when Seattle did to both Denver and Green Bay that year was that Peyton Manning and Aaron Rogers, two of the league's sweetheart elites, didn't get a chance to win. They had their fair share in regulation to do that. Again, no sympathy.

I agree with this. Give the D some power in deciding the game. If a team drives down the field and scores a TD on your D you should lose.

[NorthHawk]

I can see both sides, but there is a lot of support to give both teams an equal opportunity before going to sudden death (FG from 50+) within a playoff and Super Bowl structure.
Besides, wouldn't you want to watch a great game a little longer? I would, and the NFL could get more money from the extra commercial breaks.

[Hawktawk]

Nope.
Atlanta has absolutely nothing to complain about. They coached and played the most inept 23 minutes in the history of pro football to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
It was over at the coin flip, even had the Falcons won it IMO.They were completely shell shocked, toast.

The system is fair,much more than before. Its the big leagues,not college ball.

[NorthHawk]

One series each then first points after that if still tied isn't at all like College ball.

[Hawktawk]

Someone would still complain. It literally would have no impact on the Sb in my opinion. Atlanta hadn't scored as much as a field goal in almost 30 minutes.

They had just under a minute of possession after NE tied the game only needing 3 and three and outed so fast they left 11 seconds on the clock.
No sympathy for hapless Atlanta and no more changes. It would come back to haunt Seattle at some point as Russ has won 3 times scoring an OT touchdown including bears in his first season.

There are enough rules and gimmicks lengthening games already .

[Oly]

Defense should matter, and the current format makes sure it still does. I think the current rule is as good of a balance you can get between making defense matter and making it so the coin flip doesn't stack the deck.

[NorthHawk]

Had Atlanta won the toss and gone down and scored a TD, there would be a massive outcry because of the comeback.
Who's to say they wouldn't have tied it up? Nobody expected NE to come back, and we can't predict the future so how does it hurt?

[Hawktawk]

Had Atlanta won the toss and gone down and scored a TD, there would be a massive outcry because of the comeback.
Who's to say they wouldn't have tied it up? Nobody expected NE to come back, and we can't predict the future so how does it hurt?

Well you have a point there North. Much as Seattle's ill fated call in 49 we really cant say with certainty what would have happened had they handed it off. We have a pretty good idea though, as I feel I do with Atlanta's chances in a further pussified overtime structure granting them an overtime possession.

AS Ive stated and we all saw Atlanta was hapless on offense after their 28-3 lead. The only significant drive was the swing pass to Freeman and then the highlight reel catch by Julio. Once they F'd up that gift by the leagues best receiver it was a matter of when, not if they were going to lose.

If they couldn't drive it 50 for a GW field goal with 57 seconds left or really even advance the ball far enough to have a shot at a hail mary or whatever they weren't going to go the length of the field for a TD down 7 in OT. NE's D had them in lockdown.

They were beat already. I almost turned it off after the Pats tied it and again at the coin flip. I knew how it would end but unfortunately I left it on adding to my disgust and indigestion.
Watching a 4 and out by the gang that suddenly couldn't shoot straight would have only made it worse.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Had Atlanta won the toss and gone down and scored a TD, there would be a massive outcry because of the comeback.
Who's to say they wouldn't have tied it up? Nobody expected NE to come back, and we can't predict the future so how does it hurt?

There would have been, and I would have given them the same answer. A Belichick-led defense that for the entire second half had the Falcons number suddenly can't hold them to a field goal gets no sympathy from me. Really, a Belichick-led defense period should be able to that when it gets down to the nut-cutting.

[NorthHawk]

Well you don't know that. It's also why we don't play games on paper.
Weird things happen in football. Who would have thought the Pats receiver would have caught that ball when all the 2nd DB had to do was tackle him immediately and ignore the ball, but he didn't.
The trend certainly was in NE's favor, but trends end and they often do so suddenly. One mistake on a kickoff or an unfortunate slip on a run play and it's a whole different game.

[RiverDog]

There aren't very many good options for breaking ties in football. The high schools, at least the ones around here, and the colleges use the Kansas tiebreaker, which although fair, changes the game as it shrinks the size of the playing field from 100 yards down to 25 yards. A pure sudden death gives too much of an advantage to the team that wins the coin toss, and the modified sudden death still favors the coin toss winner, especially in a game between two high powered offenses such as we had in the SB.

One option that hasn't been discussed is to require the overtime session to be played for the entire 15 minutes and eliminate sudden death. But of course, that would still give an unfair advantage to the team that wins the coin toss, but it would mitigate it more than the current method of requiring the coin toss winner to score a TD to win, but it would virtually guarantee that each team have the ball at least once.

I agree with the consensus regarding that the Falcons have no legitimate b**** considering the way the game went. Had it been a see saw contest during the entire game, then maybe, but not when they blow a 3 score lead, including a 2 pt. conversion, shoot themselves in the foot the one time in the 2nd half that they did get into scoring range, and couldn't even manage a measly little FG through the entire 2nd half. The Falcons have only themselves to blame for blowing a once in a lifetime opportunity. The best team won.

[Oly]

There aren't very many good options for breaking ties in football. ...the modified sudden death still favors the coin toss winner, especially in a game between two high powered offenses such as we had in the SB.

I agree with the first line. But I do like the modified format. I don't buy the critique that in a game with good offenses, the fact that the coin toss winner is favored is an unfair advantage. If your team lost the coin toss and the game, then it means you put too much into your high powered offense and not enough in the defense. Until the NFL's rules are so lopsided to the offense that TDs are scored on the majority of drives, I think the current format is as fair as it can get.

One option that hasn't been discussed is to require the overtime session to be played for the entire 15 minutes and eliminate sudden death. But of course, that would still give an unfair advantage to the team that wins the coin toss, but it would mitigate it more than the current method of requiring the coin toss winner to score a TD to win, but it would virtually guarantee that each team have the ball at least once.

I'm actually more troubled by the increased injury risk and the overall effect on players. After seeing that Cardinals game, I don't want to see players having to play through another quarter.

The Falcons have only themselves to blame for blowing a once in a lifetime opportunity. The best team won.

Agreed, as much as it pains me to say it.