December 16, 2018, 03:05:26 AM

Author Topic: Super Bowl Thread  (Read 877 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5579
  • Karma: +28/-5
Super Bowl Thread
« on: February 03, 2018, 06:29:33 PM »
Amazing. No talk of the SB? None? Is it that boring? Or are there so many that are just sick of seeing the Patriots play again? If so, that should probably be marked down as jealousy. After all, if you were alive during the '60's, when Lombardi's teams dominated the league, were you tired of seeing the Packers win year after year? Would you be bored if the Packers had the same amount of success with Favre and Rodgers? Doubtful.

Anyway, I had a Philly cheesesteak for lunch, and am planning of having a Philly cheesesteak pizza tomorrow. So, yeah, I'm tired of seeing the Pats back in the big game. But, lets take a look at the SB's the Pats have appeared in.

All of the Patriots' Super Bowl appearance are listed below:

1985- Lost 46-10 to Bears
1998- Lost 35-21 to Packers
2001- Won 20-17 over Rams
2003- Won 32-29 over Panthers
2004- Won 24-21 over Eagles
2007- Lost 17-14 to Giants
2011- Lost 21-17 to Giants
2014- Won 28-24 over Seahawks
2016- Won 34-28 over Falcons

Forget the first two. Different eras completely, both games being "P.B." (Pre-Brady, or Pre-Belichick, your choice; even though the two of them are inseparable at this juncture). There is a pattern here- close games, and several of them swung on single plays. Also, notice that there was a ten year gap where they didn't win a SB. And then, they beat the Seahawks on a goal line interception that is still considered one of the worst play calls in NFL history. Any of these games could have gone differently, and instead of mourning the amount of SB titles the Pats have, we could instead be looking at them as more futile than the Buffalo Bills, or Vikings (both with four appearances and no wins).
On the other hand, change two plays for the Giants, and the Pats are going for their eighth title.

However you may feel, this run of excellence is unparalleled in the modern era of sports. Considering free agency, the salary cap and the curse of complacency so many teams have to fight, this is something to marvel at. And resent.
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Online marklawrence

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2929
  • Karma: +30/-8
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2018, 08:32:59 PM »
Go Eagles!
I'm a Deplorable Freeloader, clinging to my Guns and Bible! And Proud of it!

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4679
  • Karma: +14/-2
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2018, 09:52:26 AM »
I don't really care who wins, but will be happy for Pederson if he/his team can pull it off with a backup QB.

Mostly watching for the commercials and movie trailers. Always fun.  ;D

Tilapia fish tacos w/ coleslaw and pineapple salsa and blue-corn chips w/ queso dip for game food.

No alcohol today..............I'm on-call.

Offline Kepler

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2018, 11:54:57 AM »
Amazing. No talk of the SB? None? Is it that boring? Or are there so many that are just sick of seeing the Patriots play again? If so, that should probably be marked down as jealousy. After all, if you were alive during the '60's, when Lombardi's teams dominated the league, were you tired of seeing the Packers win year after year? Would you be bored if the Packers had the same amount of success with Favre and Rodgers? Doubtful.

Anyway, I had a Philly cheesesteak for lunch, and am planning of having a Philly cheesesteak pizza tomorrow. So, yeah, I'm tired of seeing the Pats back in the big game. But, lets take a look at the SB's the Pats have appeared in.

All of the Patriots' Super Bowl appearance are listed below:

1985- Lost 46-10 to Bears
1998- Lost 35-21 to Packers
2001- Won 20-17 over Rams
2003- Won 32-29 over Panthers
2004- Won 24-21 over Eagles
2007- Lost 17-14 to Giants
2011- Lost 21-17 to Giants
2014- Won 28-24 over Seahawks
2016- Won 34-28 over Falcons

Forget the first two. Different eras completely, both games being "P.B." (Pre-Brady, or Pre-Belichick, your choice; even though the two of them are inseparable at this juncture). There is a pattern here- close games, and several of them swung on single plays. Also, notice that there was a ten year gap where they didn't win a SB. And then, they beat the Seahawks on a goal line interception that is still considered one of the worst play calls in NFL history. Any of these games could have gone differently, and instead of mourning the amount of SB titles the Pats have, we could instead be looking at them as more futile than the Buffalo Bills, or Vikings (both with four appearances and no wins).
On the other hand, change two plays for the Giants, and the Pats are going for their eighth title.

However you may feel, this run of excellence is unparalleled in the modern era of sports. Considering free agency, the salary cap and the curse of complacency so many teams have to fight, this is something to marvel at. And resent.

I'm never really interested if the packers aren't playing. I've tried watching other games before, but I become too bored with it. I think I need to feel invested or something.

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2949
  • Karma: +10/-1
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2018, 07:47:44 PM »
Hell of a game. Only controversial call was the Clement touchdown, but it looked to me like his foot made contact with the endzone just before he stepped out of bounds. You could see the dirt kick up up first and then his foot goes out of bounds. Collinsworth really lost it on the Ertz touchdown. Was surprised they looked at it that long because it was clearly a touchdown.

Happy for the Iggles. Now maybe their fans won't be so damn bitter and vitriolic all the time.

Offline BIG LEGEND

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
  • Karma: +16/-0
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2018, 08:07:40 PM »
Great game, I am so glad the Patriots came up short.

 How those two rocket scientists in the booth could say that wasn't a catch is beyond me. The rule in this case is crystal clear, the receiver caught the ball 🏈 and clearly turned and took two and a half steps with clear control of the ball before he had any contact by a defender as he was diving towards the end one. He clearly had established himself as a runner, and that is why the Dez Bryant play was not a catch. Bryant went up snagged the ball and as he was coming down hit with one foot on the ground, got tangled up with the defender and was even going down to the ground before a second foot even hit, therefore Dez had to maintain possession of the ball after he hit the ground, which he did not. The rules for a catch I do think are ridiculous, but they actually are pretty clear, although the interpretation is sometimes very mind boggling.

Why not just have it be possession of the ball at the point that constitutes being a catch in bounds. I mean if you go up and catch the ball and have possession when both feet or whatever constitutes being a catch in bounds, it should be a catch. If you catch the ball and have possession and are just starting to turn up field that should be a catch. If at that point you get hit and lose the ball, that should be a fumble, because the player had possession of the ball with the body parts needed to constitute a catch in bounds. I always thought having to make a football move is ridiculous. Possession of the ball legally inbounds should be a catch. Long winded I know, but the catch rule is stupid.

Online marklawrence

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2929
  • Karma: +30/-8
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2018, 08:51:30 PM »
How those two rocket scientists in the booth could say that wasn't a catch is beyond me.


I thought this was identical to the pittsburgh non-catch. I don't understand how you can say it was obvious. The rule makes this a crap shoot on about a quarter of all receiving TDs.
I'm a Deplorable Freeloader, clinging to my Guns and Bible! And Proud of it!

Offline The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2423
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2018, 10:55:26 PM »
How thos :oe two rocket scientists in the booth could say that wasn't a catch is beyond me.


I thought this was identical to the pittsburgh non-catch. I don't understand how you can say it was obvious. The rule makes this a crap shoot on about a quarter of all receiving TDs.

The difference was Ertz took a couple of steps with the ball and was clearly a runner as he approached the goal line.  James bobble was clearly part of the no catch process.   

Offline WTX_Cheese

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2018, 01:35:10 PM »
Leave it to Collinsworth to overreact to something that should have been an average TD. (aside from it being the Super Bowl)

Online marklawrence

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2929
  • Karma: +30/-8
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2018, 03:34:04 PM »
Leave it to Collinsworth to overreact to something that should have been an average TD. (aside from it being the Super Bowl)

I expected it to be over turned.
I'm a Deplorable Freeloader, clinging to my Guns and Bible! And Proud of it!

Offline mtsportsfan

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Super Bowl Thread
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2018, 04:05:56 PM »
Really enjoyed the game, especially with the eagles winning(not a fan of either team)
 Two things that stood out to me that haven't had alot of talk about( I think) 1) the time out by belichick at the 2:03 Mark in the fourth. He used his last t.o. to save three seconds, thought it would have been better to let the clock run down to the 2 minute warning, eagles run more play and then let clock run before next play which was the fg. Those 25 to 30 seconds could have been handy at the end. Ya never know.
 2) how did Chung stay in the game, Philly rb basically motioned that he was knocked out for a moment, so much for concussion protocol!
 Maybe I'm wrong , but there doesn't seem there is much discussion regarding these two topics!