Super Bowl LI (51) NFL Championship Game Thread

[NannyMcafee]

1 hour ago, NYCfan said:

Yes, thank you.  Please keep it up.  Don't start liking us now that we pulled this off.  Hate us.  The Hate fuels us and drives us.  Bring it on!  

 

It fules you to keep being a fan? Glad at least we can help you. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 8:56 PM, RockThatBlue said:

I still think the Warriors choke job was worse, as that one lasted 3 games. This one is probably worst in NFL history

 

Yeah that was pretty bad. Up 3-1 with HCA. Cavs had to win Game 7 at Golden State and still did, Warriors didn't score in the last 5 minutes of the game. Also the Yankees being up 3-0 on the Redsox in the 2004 ALCS and losing 4 straight + the Yankees had Game 7 at home. How about the Indians being up 3-1 in last years WS, Cubs had to win Game 6 and Game 7 on the road to pull that off. Football wise Falcons blowing a 28-3 lead is the worst though IMO. I thought in 2006 when we played the Pats in the Title Game was a huge choke by the Pats, they were up 21-3 at one time and 21-6 at Half. Colts ended up winning the game scoring 32 2nd Half points.

[GoPats]

 

The Falcons, IMO, didn't "choke" in the traditional sense. The only thing that I think was really foolish on their part was not running the clock down as much as they could on each play in the 4th quarter. But I don't think the aggressive play-calling was completely dumb. Easy to say it was, now that we know how it worked out, but at the time, I was begging for them to be TOO conservative, which is often how these things go. They stayed aggressive because that's who they are and that's what got them there. They didn't execute when it mattered most. 

 

The Atlanta defense, put simply, got gassed. Endurance is not a skill or talent, it's the result of hard work and conditioning, and the Patriots out-lasted the Falcons. Nothing really changed in terms of scheme or strategy. The Patriots just started winning the one-on-one battles they had lost for the better part of three quarters. 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

The Falcons, IMO, didn't "choke" in the traditional sense. The only thing that I think was really foolish on their part was not running the clock down as much as they could on each play in the 4th quarter. But I don't think the aggressive play-calling was completely dumb. Easy to say it was, now that we know how it worked out, but at the time, I was begging for them to be TOO conservative, which is often how these things go. They stayed aggressive because that's who they are and that's what got them there. They didn't execute when it mattered most. 

 

The Atlanta defense, put simply, got gassed. Endurance is not a skill or talent, it's the result of hard work and conditioning, and the Patriots out-lasted the Falcons. Nothing really changed in terms of scheme or strategy. The Patriots just started winning the one-on-one battles they had lost for the better part of three quarters. 

 

 

IMO the Patriots had the better team so technically some may not look at it as a choke. When a team loses a 28-3 lead though most people would say it is. When my Cubs won the WS, I thought they should've being the best team all season but when they were down 3-1 without HFA, the Indians basically choked.

[Yehoodi]

46 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

The Falcons, IMO, didn't "choke" in the traditional sense. The only thing that I think was really foolish on their part was not running the clock down as much as they could on each play in the 4th quarter. But I don't think the aggressive play-calling was completely dumb. Easy to say it was, now that we know how it worked out, but at the time, I was begging for them to be TOO conservative, which is often how these things go. They stayed aggressive because that's who they are and that's what got them there. They didn't execute when it mattered most. 

 

The Atlanta defense, put simply, got gassed. Endurance is not a skill or talent, it's the result of hard work and conditioning, and the Patriots out-lasted the Falcons. Nothing really changed in terms of scheme or strategy. The Patriots just started winning the one-on-one battles they had lost for the better part of three quarters. 

 

 

 

Yes, the Falcons continued to do what they do, and perhaps that is not a bad thing.  How many times have we seen teams, with a lead, run three run plays to try to get first downs and end the game, and then they have to punt and the other teams gets the ball back. Some fans have said why not just keep running ones offense. 

 

If one is in a rhythm of hiking the ball at a certain time then maybe waiting can be an issue too.  The Falcon passed a lot late in the game and on the Jones catch drive there were at the 22 yard line cause on one play they ran a lot of deep routes freeing up the underneath for the RB (plus a blown coverage by the Pats), then Ryan those a pass (instead of running himself) to Jones that could of been picked if thrown a foot lower.  

So they are what they are.  As for taking three run plays and kicking a FG, they may of been thinking pats might get a TD and onside kick (See Seattle/GB '14 NFCCG) and thus would get two more possessions.  A first down would eat up more clock and a TD would essentially end the game with time to get it and make it a 15 point game. 

 

Given the fact that all year with teams first and 10 on the 22, there were about 108 times this happened and no one punted in any of these 108 times till the SB.  So i can see Atlanta's thinking.  

[GoPats]

On 2/28/2017 at 0:09 PM, Yehoodi said:

 

Yes, the Falcons continued to do what they do, and perhaps that is not a bad thing.  How many times have we seen teams, with a lead, run three run plays to try to get first downs and end the game, and then they have to punt and the other teams gets the ball back. Some fans have said why not just keep running ones offense. 

 

 

Right, exactly what I was saying... and this is usually what we see from NE opponents. They sort of turtle and just "play not to lose." If the defense knows they're just burning clock, getting three-and-outs becomes easier. So I give credit to Atlanta for not playing it too close, and for being aggressive when a lot of teams wouldn't have the cahones to do that. Like I said, they were just a play or two short. 

 

 

[GoPats]

On 2/28/2017 at 11:27 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

IMO the Patriots had the better team so technically some may not look at it as a choke. When a team loses a 28-3 lead though most people would say it is. When my Cubs won the WS, I thought they should've being the best team all season but when they were down 3-1 without HFA, the Indians basically choked.

 

Well let me ask this as a comparison...

 

In the '06 AFC Championship game, the Patriots lead the Colts 21-3 at one point and 21-6 at the half. But of course Indy came back and won it. 

 

Was that a choke job by the Patriots? Or a great comeback? 

 

It's kind of a fine line you know? And I think in just about every case, it's a little of both. One team usually steps up their execution while the other team starts making mistakes. 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

Well let me ask this as a comparison...

 

In the '06 AFC Championship game, the Patriots lead the Colts 21-3 at one point and 21-6 at the half. But of course Indy came back and won it. 

 

Was that a choke job by the Patriots? Or a great comeback? 

 

It's kind of a fine line you know? And I think in just about every case, it's a little of both. One team usually steps up their execution while the other team starts making mistakes. 

 

 

Yeah I agree, I think it's a little of both. The Colts wore down the Pats in that 2nd Half much like the Pats did the Falcons. We are talking about Tom and Peyton though so anything is possible with them. I honestly felt like the Colts had the better team that 1 year but losing a 21-3 lead can be looked at as a choke. Like you said it's a fine line.

[eseae]

So, how'd everyone like that superbowl? 

[aaron11]

On 3/2/2017 at 5:58 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

 I honestly felt like the Colts had the better team that 1 year

colts were better that year.  who did the pats have on offense besides brady?

 

i think the favored team has won every colts/patriots match up in recent memory

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

colts were better that year.  who did the pats have on offense besides brady?

 

i think the favored team has won every colts/patriots match up in recent memory

Pats still had a Good Defense and BB on the sideline so nothing was a given. I agree the Colts were better that season. Still barley won and that was our SB season.

[Shecky]

On Sunday, February 05, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Tsarquise said:

This game wasn't even about Tom Brady. 

Then what, pray tell, was it about? Brady had 466 passing yards (285 in the 4th quarter and OT alone).

We get it; there's a lot of Brady hate here but c'mon; what happened that day was astonishing.

In 50 Super Bowls the largest comeback was 10 points.

NO ONE will ever come back from 25 pts. down to win a SB again. That's an absolute lock.

 

And for everyone that wants to hand all credit to Belichick; take a look at BB's Head Coaching record in 6+ seasons without Brady? It's about 8 games under .500.

Now he's 100+ games over .500, has five SB rings and is considered the Greatest Ever.

You can make a STRONG case it was Brady who made Belichick, not the other way around.

[Chrisaaron1023]

Can we please burn this thread?.. no need to keep bringing up past nightmares.