What's your point? That Belichick made a brilliant move by not calling timeout on before Seattle's last play? Why does that diminish their win exactly? Last time I checked, other teams have coaches who call their plays and timeouts too.
And lest we forget, Malcolm Butler went and TOOK that ball. No accident there, especially since every Patriots corner practiced defending that play TWICE in the week before the game. Players make plays and coaches coach.
Sour Grapes wrote:
get it over with wrote:Atlanta. Unless Belichick finds another way to cheat, which is likely.
Nope, no cheating, just the best coach and QB in NFL history.
Pats are a dynasty that can't be stopped.
Actually Tom Brady is a bit like Rodgers most years. He has enough time to sing the national anthem before he has to throw the ball. The Patriots have a great offensive line. Their defense is also good. Unfortunately the Patriots will probably win.
Belichick is a good coach, but he is also the all-time cheater among coaches. That does not speak well for any man.
I will pray that the Falcons win but I might not even watch the game as it might be a rout.
Vivalarepublica wrote:
I would like to see Atlanta win because Belicheck is just so unlikeable, and not just because he wins so much. Just strikes me as a-hole.
That said, I just want a good game. The conference championships were crap.
Great coach, great cheater, swears a lot. Why people let him get away with it is like Trump vs. Hillary. We just don't get it.
Klo98 wrote:
Really? The AFC is way easier and the Patriots literally had the Super Bowl
Game handed to them. Didn't have to play the Seahawks (who beat them earlier), cowboys or packers. Instead got a bye, then the Texans and the steelers without LeVeon Bell.
You fools complaining that the Steelers lost due to injuries... you realize that the Pats are missing their best player besides Brady right? If the Pats lose the Super Bowl will it be because they didn't have Gronk?
macdaddy wrote:
themanontherun wrote:They've played in six consecutive AFCCGs. This will be their third Super Bowl appearance of the decade, with a good opportunity to make it 2/3 (with no other team having been there three times or won twice so far). They have no fewer than 12 wins per season in the last six seasons. Exactly what else would be your criteria for a dynasty?
It certainly wouldn't be one super bowl win in the last 11 seasons.
I mean, Eli Manning has more super bowl wins in the past 8 seasons.
As a fan, coach or owner, which past decade would you rather have? I'll answer for you... the Giants.
Of course, I'll have to eat my words if the Patriots win this year.
How about 5 of the last 15 which is what it will be if the Pats win LI.
All time cheater? What has he cheated at? I wouldn't call spygate cheating at all. He had his staff taping signals, which you're allowed to do, from the wrong location. They admitted it and were penalized harshly for it. What else has he done in terms of cheating?
Picking a fight wrote:
Sour Grapes wrote:Nope, no cheating, just the best coach and QB in NFL history.
Pats are a dynasty that can't be stopped.
Actually Tom Brady is a bit like Rodgers most years. He has enough time to sing the national anthem before he has to throw the ball. The Patriots have a great offensive line. Their defense is also good. Unfortunately the Patriots will probably win.
Belichick is a good coach, but he is also the all-time cheater among coaches. That does not speak well for any man.
I will pray that the Falcons win but I might not even watch the game as it might be a rout.
D & P wrote:
macdaddy wrote:It certainly wouldn't be one super bowl win in the last 11 seasons.
I mean, Eli Manning has more super bowl wins in the past 8 seasons.
As a fan, coach or owner, which past decade would you rather have? I'll answer for you... the Giants.
Of course, I'll have to eat my words if the Patriots win this year.
How about 5 of the last 15 which is what it will be if the Pats win LI.
If they were spread out evenly...but they're not... there is a 10 year gap. THATS A DECADE.
So you're saying they were a dynasty, but now they're not?
Blount to smoke a victory blunt
Picking a fight wrote:
Vivalarepublica wrote:I would like to see Atlanta win because Belicheck is just so unlikeable, and not just because he wins so much. Just strikes me as a-hole.
That said, I just want a good game. The conference championships were crap.
Great coach, great cheater, swears a lot. Why people let him get away with it is like Trump vs. Hillary. We just don't get it.
Another reason I don't care for the Patriots is that Boston has literally the most miserable and nasty population I ever visited and Patriots fans fit that caricature. Just relax a little, guys.
macdaddy wrote:
D & P wrote:How about 5 of the last 15 which is what it will be if the Pats win LI.
If they were spread out evenly...but they're not... there is a 10 year gap. THATS A DECADE.
Dude, the Giants don't have ANY playoff wins other than those two years. They have been non-factors for 5 years. The Pats are super bowl contenders every. single. year. If you don't recognize that this is the greatest dynasty/coach/qb of all time then I feel bad for you. If you wanna make up a bunch of crap about how its all because of some phantom cheating then you're a hater, and a loser.
BTW this is coming from a cowboys fan, not a pats fan. Its just facts.
LoL the haters' argument is that Pat's wins from over 10 years ago don't count. That's like saying the San Antionio Spurs weren't a dynasty because they only won twice in the past 10 years too. They won 5 championships from '99-2014 and everyone calls them a dynasty. If the Pats win this year, it's the same.
80s kid wrote:
LoL the haters' argument is that Pat's wins from over 10 years ago don't count. That's like saying the San Antionio Spurs weren't a dynasty because they only won twice in the past 10 years too. They won 5 championships from '99-2014 and everyone calls them a dynasty. If the Pats win this year, it's the same.
The pats don't have to win this year. They are already a dynasty. I would say the best dynasty in football history based on the way today's league is set up with the salary cap. The league is built purposefully to promote parody. Ask the broncos and panthers. Or even the Falcons who went from missing the playoffs to super bowl. The only team there every single year whether you like it or not is New England. This particular year they did it without one of the best players in the NFL in Gronk.
Unfortunate for them wrote:
The league is built purposefully to promote parody.
LOL, I guess that is a true statement as well, but I think you mean parity.
Picking a fight wrote:
Actually Tom Brady is a bit like Rodgers most years. He has enough time to sing the national anthem before he has to throw the ball. The Patriots have a great offensive line.
Guess you missed last year's AFC Championship game versus Denver. Brady spent more time on the ground than standing and within 24 hours New England fired the O-line coach Dave DeGuglielmo and talked Dante Scarnecchia into coming back from retirement.
2015 season: 38 sacks over 16 games, ~2.4 per game
2016 season: 15 sacks over 12 games, ~1.2 per game
jimmy chonga wrote:
Unfortunate for them wrote:The league is built purposefully to promote parody.
LOL, I guess that is a true statement as well, but I think you mean parity.
You are right, I'm an idiot. But my statement about the league and the pats still stands.
MurderDubs wrote:
Title of thread says it all: Atl is a great front-running team with a very good QB, a great WR, quick RBs and a fast defense that plays well from ahead and gets to the QB. The Patriots are the Patriots but their running game seems better and tougher than usual.
Who wins? Or, more accurately, do the Falcons have a chance?
Not only do they have a chance, they will win by double digits.
You heard it here first!
useless stat dept: The winning team has worn the white jerseys in 11 of the last 12 Superbowls. The Patriots wear the white this year. The only team to win that didn't wear white was GB.