Super Bowl LI: The Atlanta perspective

I just saw Alford hot dog the last 15 yards to the end zone on his INT. I guess I turned away when it was live and for all the repeats. Freeman I did watch with his body flip and land on his back act. Just want to point out that you'll never see a Patriot player pull that shit.
I thought Alford was trying to use up as much time on the clock as possible (without getting to the point of being obnoxious) before going into the end zone, so as to leave Brady as little time as possible for his next drive at the end of the half. Which would have been extremely smart if that was in fact what he was doing. He hardly seemed to be hot-dogging to me, except in the sense that he was clearly happy to be on the verge of scoring a pick-six.
I guess this is the right place to mention that ConigliarosPotential put on a clinic on how to participate in a an opponent fan forum. No trolling, pushed back on some of the more obvious ridiculousness. Kudos.
Thank you. I did try.
 
Curses? Bah. That's a CHB invention. There was at least one parallel though that I saw last night that reminded me of 1986. Everything about Arthur Blank and his wife on the sidelines screamed Jean Yawkey in the visitor's clubhouse at Shea with the Sox up in Game 6.

Atlanta's got a good young football team with the reigning NFL MVP at quarterback. They'll contend.
I didn't mean "cursed" in the CHB sense. Just snakebitten, or unlucky, or sad. Atlanta is a sad sports town.

Re: Blank on the sidelines, Blank always comes down to the sidelines at the end of games, and his wife was with him for both playoff games. Not sure if you were aware of that, but there really wasn't anything weird to read into that.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,910
San Andreas Fault
I thought Alford was trying to use up as much time on the clock as possible (without getting to the point of being obnoxious) before going into the end zone, so as to leave Brady as little time as possible for his next drive at the end of the half. Which would have been extremely smart if that was in fact what he was doing. He hardly seemed to be hot-dogging to me, except in the sense that he was clearly happy to be on the verge of scoring a pick-six.
Maybe. One thing I worry about though is a teammate committing a stupid foul while a guy is hotdogging for a second or two and they bring it back, at least partially. Get the hell in the end zone ASAP would be my rule. One time, DeSean Jackson, I think on a long punt return, got to the two yard line or so and then ran parallel to the goal line for a large part of the width of the field, maybe backwards. I can't say anything happened like a penalty, but it's possible, like block in the back type penalties that occur on punt returns far, far from the return guy. Just don't like it, from my team or the opponent.
 
By the way, for all of the Belichick and Brady love elsewhere in this forum, let's not forget how things looked at halftime. I had plenty of time to think about what winning a Super Bowl would feel like, and at halftime I was strangely dissatisfied. Both playoff wins against the Seahawks and Packers came against teams suffering important injuries, and although the Falcons truly dominated both games, that domination felt slightly hollow because of the circumstances (even if many pundits had picked the Falcons to lose both games). And well into the third quarter of the Super Bowl, it looked like Belichick and McDaniels had messed up pretty badly, and that Brady was way below his usual best. I'd wanted the Falcons to win their first Super Bowl like the Patriots had won their first, beating a great team in a closely fought game that went down to the wire or close to it; if the Falcons had coasted to win by three touchdowns on Sunday, there would have been a very strong "Why were the Patriots so bad?" vibe, perhaps even more than "Why were the Falcons so good?"

Of course, the Falcons didn't win, so perhaps I should have been happy with the proverbial bird in the hand.
 
Maybe. One thing I worry about though is a teammate committing a stupid foul while a guy is hotdogging for a second or two and they bring it back, at least partially. Get the hell in the end zone ASAP would be my rule. One time, DeSean Jackson, I think on a long punt return, got to the two yard line or so and then ran parallel to the goal line for a large part of the width of the field, maybe backwards. I can't say anything happened like a penalty, but it's possible, like block in the back type penalties that occur on punt returns far, far from the return guy. Just don't like it, from my team or the opponent.
FWIW, that DeSean Jackson punt return is exactly what flashed through my mind as I saw Alford approach the end zone - I wondered if he would start jogging parallel to the end zone for a few seconds.

Incidentally - and this is not directed at you - there's really no need whatsoever for any Patriots fan to retrospectively get pissy at any joy the Falcons players may have experienced in the Super Bowl. Freeman leapt into the end zone because he was happy to be scoring the first touchdown in the Super Bowl. There's something really reptilian about sports fans' brains sometimes - it's not enough for some people when their team is winning, they need to get angry at the other team. I mean, it's fine to get angry at the Steelers or Broncos or Seahawks or Giants and/or their fans - there are obviously good reasons to do so. But sometimes supporting your own team really ought to be enough.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,900
Alexandria, VA
I thought Alford was trying to use up as much time on the clock as possible (without getting to the point of being obnoxious) before going into the end zone, so as to leave Brady as little time as possible for his next drive at the end of the half.
Sure didn't seem that way to me, it looked like he was vamping stupidly. And that play managed to turn half the people I watching with from pulling for the Falcons to at least hoping he got tackled or even rooting for the Pats.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,021
Imaginationland
By the way, for all of the Belichick and Brady love elsewhere in this forum, let's not forget how things looked at halftime. I had plenty of time to think about what winning a Super Bowl would feel like, and at halftime I was strangely dissatisfied. Both playoff wins against the Seahawks and Packers came against teams suffering important injuries, and although the Falcons truly dominated both games, that domination felt slightly hollow because of the circumstances (even if many pundits had picked the Falcons to lose both games). And well into the third quarter of the Super Bowl, it looked like Belichick and McDaniels had messed up pretty badly, and that Brady was way below his usual best. I'd wanted the Falcons to win their first Super Bowl like the Patriots had won their first, beating a great team in a closely fought game that went down to the wire or close to it; if the Falcons had coasted to win by three touchdowns on Sunday, there would have been a very strong "Why were the Patriots so bad?" vibe, perhaps even more than "Why were the Falcons so good?"

Of course, the Falcons didn't win, so perhaps I should have been happy with the proverbial bird in the hand.
Brady and the team looked pretty lousy in the 1st half, but in retrospect, I don't think you can complain about the offensive gameplan too much. 3 of the Pats final 4 drives in the 1st half were for 50+ yards, but they only came away with 3 points because of a fumble, an interception, and running out of time. Other than perhaps the odd screen pass to Bennett on the penultimate play of the 1st half, it's hard to fault Belichick/McDaniels there.

Not counting the final play of regulation and the short field the Pats got off the strip sack, their offense drove 50+ yards on 7 of their final 9 drives (the first of which started in the 1st quarter). On primetime, Belichick was asked if they made adjustments at half time, and his response was that by the middle of the 1st quarter, they had a pretty good handle on what Atlanta was doing defensively, and I think the drive chart bears that out. Hindsight is of course 20-20, but the Pats' offense was definitely set to break out in the 3rd and 4th quarters (that's of course only about 1/3 of the solution to coming back from 25 points down, but still).
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
By the way, for all of the Belichick and Brady love elsewhere in this forum, let's not forget how things looked at halftime. I had plenty of time to think about what winning a Super Bowl would feel like, and at halftime I was strangely dissatisfied. Both playoff wins against the Seahawks and Packers came against teams suffering important injuries, and although the Falcons truly dominated both games, that domination felt slightly hollow because of the circumstances (even if many pundits had picked the Falcons to lose both games). And well into the third quarter of the Super Bowl, it looked like Belichick and McDaniels had messed up pretty badly, and that Brady was way below his usual best. I'd wanted the Falcons to win their first Super Bowl like the Patriots had won their first, beating a great team in a closely fought game that went down to the wire or close to it; if the Falcons had coasted to win by three touchdowns on Sunday, there would have been a very strong "Why were the Patriots so bad?" vibe, perhaps even more than "Why were the Falcons so good?"

Of course, the Falcons didn't win, so perhaps I should have been happy with the proverbial bird in the hand.
This is some really weird ass shit.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
Atlanta hurt themselves badly, on their last 2 drives, by going for the knockout blow when all they needed to do was run the clock down and protect the lead.

If they run on 3rd and 1 and get stuffed, they punt (with a punter who was great in this game) and the Patriots have a long field to work with instead of just being able to punch it in. If they make it, they can, at worst, run time and Patriots time outs off the clock.

Then they are driving on their last drive, get into FG range, and all they absolutely needed to do was not get backed up and kick the FG. Absolutely didn't need a TD there. A couple of runs to set the FG up from the angle the kicker wanted as all they should have done.

As Mike Lombardi said in an emergency podcast with Bill Simmons, their opponent was the clock, not the Patriots.

There were also a couple of plays where they snapped the ball with 15-20 seconds left on the clock - that was free time they could have run off but didn't.
Not singling you out specifically EJ but using your post to make a point. While there's obviously some truth to it, I think this meme has been overplayed. Had the Atlanta coaches gone all conservative like everyone is saying they 'obviously should have done' and just played to kill clock then we wouldn't have seen the Freeman catch-and-run nor JJ's masterpiece catch. We could well be sitting here saying they lost because Quinn and Shanahan killed the style that got them the lead in the first place.

Yes, I know that once they got inside the 25 they had a situation where they could have pushed the lead to 11 points, but when you think about it, a sack or INT isn't much more likely (if at all) than a momentum changing botched or missed FG (and the latter gives the Pats the ball on the 30 vice the 11).
 
This is some really weird ass shit.
Says the guy whose city's teams have won 37 major professional sports championships. Boston fans rank which of their championships felt the best; fans from many other cities can only dream about what winning championships must feel like, and what they might want those championships to feel like when they come.
 
Not singling you out specifically EJ but using your post to make a point. While there's obviously some truth to it, I think this meme has been overplayed. Had the Atlanta coaches gone all conservative like everyone is saying they 'obviously should have done' and just played to kill clock then we wouldn't have seen the Freeman catch-and-run nor JJ's masterpiece catch. We could well be sitting here saying they lost because Quinn and Shanahan killed the style that got them the lead in the first place.

Yes, I know that once they got inside the 25 they had a situation where they could have pushed the lead to 11 points, but when you think about it, a sack or INT isn't much more likely (if at all) than a momentum changing botched or missed FG (and the latter gives the Pats the ball on the 30 vice the 11).
I absolutely agree with this. The results Atlanta got from the plays they called in these situations were near the worst possible results they could have gotten, and the conservative options still relied upon a 40+ yard field goal by a good kicker who had been put under a lot of pressure on Atlanta's previous extra point attempts. Nothing was a given.

By the way, Julio Jones...I've never, ever seen a receiver with such impeccable body control on the sidelines. The catch he made in the fourth quarter was like the Mona Lisa of sideline catches. You can take your OBJ one-handers - I'll take my JJ toe-tappers.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,702
Bow, NH
Yeah, I don't think there is any way that you can say that Alford was trying to kill some time off the clock. There was absolutely no need to at that point of the game. I don't think any player in the NFL would have had that on their mind at the time. IMO it was hot dogging, plain and simple. Not taking anything away from that play, he made a great play on a horrible throw.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,481
Melrose, MA
Not singling you out specifically EJ but using your post to make a point. While there's obviously some truth to it, I think this meme has been overplayed. Had the Atlanta coaches gone all conservative like everyone is saying they 'obviously should have done' and just played to kill clock then we wouldn't have seen the Freeman catch-and-run nor JJ's masterpiece catch. We could well be sitting here saying they lost because Quinn and Shanahan killed the style that got them the lead in the first place.

Yes, I know that once they got inside the 25 they had a situation where they could have pushed the lead to 11 points, but when you think about it, a sack or INT isn't much more likely (if at all) than a momentum changing botched or missed FG (and the latter gives the Pats the ball on the 30 vice the 11).
Nope. This argument only makes sense if you ignore the clock and the importance of field position. The Patriots weren't winning this game without a big turnover on the Atlanta side of the field - and they just barely had enough time left to do that.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
Nope. This argument only makes sense if you ignore the clock and the importance of field position. The Patriots weren't winning this game without a big turnover on the Atlanta side of the field - and they just barely had enough time left to do that.
I was talking about the decisions that game after the Falcons got inside the 25 with an 8-point lead (before the sack, holding call and incompletion forced them to punt of 4th and 33). If you're talking about the 3rd and 1 with over 8:30 left when Hightower strip-sacked Ryan for the fumble then I disagree even more.

Yes, the fumble was obviously a huge (sorry - I hate that word now...) a significant boost to the Pats' chances of a comeback. But if you're saying that the Falcons should have given up on passing the ball with 8 or 9 minutes left in the game because something bad might happen you're just plain wrong. Not only would running the ball there - and presumably every other down now that you've gone into kill-the-clock mode - led to a likely punt and thus a change of possession anyway, but you're conservativeness would mean that they'd likely go 3-and-out again the next possession so no Freeman 39 yard gain nor JJ's 27 yard miracle catch. So the time you saved by avoiding the fumble (which was never likely to happen) would have been given back by punting from your own end on the last possession instead of backing the Pats up to their own 9.

In fact, the way I see it instead of requiring the Pats D to make a strip sack (and recover it), another sack for a 12 yard loss and a holding penalty to give the Offense the slim chance it had to tie the game, your strategy would have merely required the D to stop the run on 2 drives when you made it blindingly obvious that that was all you were going to do. I think your play calling would have given the Pats a better chance, not worse, than Shanahan's.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
You guys sound like a crotchety grandpa. There was no one within 50 yards of Alford. This isn't a Leon Lett situation. Let him enjoy the moment, at the time it looked like it would be an all-time highlight reel and fire his team up.

This isn't Little League where we want to teach kids sportsmanship. This is pro, Brady is the enemy and they got a little chance to rub it in the Pats' faces. Glad it turned out the other way, but I have zero problem with slowing up there.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Internet as self-therapy tends to lend itself to this – nobody's job to reign it in, focus, and guide things.
That's all well and good. But a Falcons fan, watching the super bowl, lamenting a victory that isn't even confirmed as not really a worthy victory b/c they beat hobbled teams (such as two recent Super Bowl Champions and one of the best QBs in the game) speaks not to therapy but to delusional insanity.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,101
By the way, for all of the Belichick and Brady love elsewhere in this forum, let's not forget how things looked at halftime. I had plenty of time to think about what winning a Super Bowl would feel like, and at halftime I was strangely dissatisfied. Both playoff wins against the Seahawks and Packers came against teams suffering important injuries, and although the Falcons truly dominated both games, that domination felt slightly hollow because of the circumstances (even if many pundits had picked the Falcons to lose both games). And well into the third quarter of the Super Bowl, it looked like Belichick and McDaniels had messed up pretty badly, and that Brady was way below his usual best. I'd wanted the Falcons to win their first Super Bowl like the Patriots had won their first, beating a great team in a closely fought game that went down to the wire or close to it; if the Falcons had coasted to win by three touchdowns on Sunday, there would have been a very strong "Why were the Patriots so bad?" vibe, perhaps even more than "Why were the Falcons so good?"

Of course, the Falcons didn't win, so perhaps I should have been happy with the proverbial bird in the hand.
In 2004, the Red Sox swept the Cards in 4 straight, never having trailed at all in the Series. And only in Game 1 did the final outcome ever feel in doubt. However, I don't know a single Red Sox fan that felt any disappointment that the Cardinals did not put up more of a fight. I get what you're saying, but methinks you're overthinking things a bit much there.

Anyway, I agree with you wholeheartedly about Alford's TD celebration. It was potentially a huge play in the biggest game of Alford's football career at the time, against the best QB in the history of the game. Let him bask in it for a bit; he may very well never get that opportunity again.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
Not singling you out specifically EJ but using your post to make a point. While there's obviously some truth to it, I think this meme has been overplayed. Had the Atlanta coaches gone all conservative like everyone is saying they 'obviously should have done' and just played to kill clock then we wouldn't have seen the Freeman catch-and-run nor JJ's masterpiece catch. We could well be sitting here saying they lost because Quinn and Shanahan killed the style that got them the lead in the first place.

Yes, I know that once they got inside the 25 they had a situation where they could have pushed the lead to 11 points, but when you think about it, a sack or INT isn't much more likely (if at all) than a momentum changing botched or missed FG (and the latter gives the Pats the ball on the 30 vice the 11).
I couldn't agree more, and as time goes on the narrative shifts to ATL blew the game due to bad play calling, ignoring the impossibility of the situation for the Patriots. Similar to two years ago, where the brilliance of Butler / Brady is drowned out by "Pete Carroll's stupidity"**. It's all hindsight to say ATL should have done this or that (why aren't people screaming about ATL not running on 2nd down at midfield, up by 8, when Ryan makes the poor decision to throw the ball to Jones (rather than run for an easy first down), and Jones bails him out with a miracle catch...if that is incomplete, long third down at midfield, but should have been a first down around the 40 with clock running if Ryan ran and slid).

**Should Lynch have gotten the ball? Of course, but its the same reason that Wilson made the throw to Matthews at the end of the second half, from the 11 or so, which if tackled would have foregone any points (a play no one ever second guesses because it worked)...Seattle played a certain arrogant style that eventually burned them.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
I couldn't agree more, and as time goes on the narrative shifts to ATL blew the game due to bad play calling, ignoring the impossibility of the situation for the Patriots. Similar to two years ago, where the brilliance of Butler / Brady is drowned out by "Pete Carroll's stupidity"**. It's all hindsight to say ATL should have done this or that (why aren't people screaming about ATL not running on 2nd down at midfield, up by 8, when Ryan makes the poor decision to throw the ball to Jones (rather than run for an easy first down), and Jones bails him out with a miracle catch...if that is incomplete, long third down at midfield, but should have been a first down around the 40 with clock running if Ryan ran and slid).

**Should Lynch have gotten the ball? Of course, but its the same reason that Wilson made the throw to Matthews at the end of the second half, from the 11 or so, which if tackled would have foregone any points (a play no one ever second guesses because it worked)...Seattle played a certain arrogant style that eventually burned them.
Time and place, tho. At the 22, up 7 with 3 minutes and change left in the game, three runs up the gut would have been perfectly fine, considering the situation.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,101
Time and place, tho. At the 22, up 7 with 3 minutes and change left in the game, three runs up the gut would have been perfectly fine, considering the situation.
Atlanta was on New England's 23 yard line with 3:50 left. The Pats just burned their first timeout. Run 2 more times for no gain and the Pats have no timeouts and about 3:20 left in the game. Make the 40 yard FG and the the Pats have about 3 minutes to march down the field, score a TD or FG, then recover the onsides kick, and score again. Miss the FG, and the Pats still have to drive 70 yards in about 3:00 with no timeouts, and then attempt the two pointer.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
Atlanta was on New England's 23 yard line with 3:50 left. The Pats just burned their first timeout. Run 2 more times for no gain and the Pats have no timeouts and about 3:20 left in the game. Make the 40 yard FG and the the Pats have about 3 minutes to march down the field, score a TD or FG, then recover the onsides kick, and score again. Miss the FG, and the Pats still have to drive 70 yards in about 3:00 with no timeouts, and then attempt the two pointer.
First off the Pats did not take their first time out after the first run, they took it after the sack. Second, there is no guarantee what would happen if they ran...there could be a hold, there could be a fumble, they could miss the FG (the Pats were all over the extra points, just missing blocking), etc. Coleman was out, and Devonte could do nothing on the ground in the second half. Finally, don't you think ATL knew all of this? They tried to catch the Pats off guard and it failed...it was a poorly executed play by Ryan.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,481
Melrose, MA
I was talking about the decisions that game after the Falcons got inside the 25 with an 8-point lead (before the sack, holding call and incompletion forced them to punt of 4th and 33). If you're talking about the 3rd and 1 with over 8:30 left when Hightower strip-sacked Ryan for the fumble then I disagree even more.

Yes, the fumble was obviously a huge (sorry - I hate that word now...) a significant boost to the Pats' chances of a comeback. But if you're saying that the Falcons should have given up on passing the ball with 8 or 9 minutes left in the game because something bad might happen you're just plain wrong. Not only would running the ball there - and presumably every other down now that you've gone into kill-the-clock mode - led to a likely punt and thus a change of possession anyway, but you're conservativeness would mean that they'd likely go 3-and-out again the next possession so no Freeman 39 yard gain nor JJ's 27 yard miracle catch. So the time you saved by avoiding the fumble (which was never likely to happen) would have been given back by punting from your own end on the last possession instead of backing the Pats up to their own 9.

In fact, the way I see it instead of requiring the Pats D to make a strip sack (and recover it), another sack for a 12 yard loss and a holding penalty to give the Offense the slim chance it had to tie the game, your strategy would have merely required the D to stop the run on 2 drives when you made it blindingly obvious that that was all you were going to do. I think your play calling would have given the Pats a better chance, not worse, than Shanahan's.
I'm not saying that the Falcons should have given up on passing the ball, or even given up on landing a knockout punch at some point - only that they shouldn't have entirely abandoned clock management and field position to do so.

Getting stuffed on 3rd and 1, running off some time, and then punting was a GOOD outcome for Atlanta; they should have taken it when they had the chance.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,481
Melrose, MA
I couldn't agree more, and as time goes on the narrative shifts to ATL blew the game due to bad play calling, ignoring the impossibility of the situation for the Patriots.
The more impossible the situation for the Patriots, the less justification there for Atlanta to prioritize a knockout blow over clock and game management.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,677
Atlanta is basically the boxer that is leading huge on points in like the 9th or 10th round and then tried to go for the killer knockout punch instead of just playing keep away and winning on a decision instead. The Patriots trailing knock the Falcons down in the 11th round twice (Hightower Sack, TD) In the 12th instead of milking the clock down and forcing the Pats to call the timeout they continue to try to engage the Patriots for a knock blow TD where the Pats counter with a knockdown (long TD drive to tie) followed by the Patriots knocking the Falcons out in overtime for the improbable win.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
You guys sound like a crotchety grandpa. There was no one within 50 yards of Alford. This isn't a Leon Lett situation. Let him enjoy the moment, at the time it looked like it would be an all-time highlight reel and fire his team up.

This isn't Little League where we want to teach kids sportsmanship. This is pro, Brady is the enemy and they got a little chance to rub it in the Pats' faces. Glad it turned out the other way, but I have zero problem with slowing up there.
Yeah, seriously. How many of the people who get mad at this also root for the Pats to run up the score as "revenge" for Spygate / DFG / etc...? The thing with mining these little unwritten rules for perceived slights is that it's all relative and usually just an excuse to get mad.
 
That's all well and good. But a Falcons fan, watching the super bowl, lamenting a victory that isn't even confirmed as not really a worthy victory b/c they beat hobbled teams (such as two recent Super Bowl Champions and one of the best QBs in the game) speaks not to therapy but to delusional insanity.
I didn't say I was lamenting the potential victory or proclaiming it as unworthy. I was just comparing the actual scenario to my dream scenario and noticing how the former had fallen short of the latter. Put it this way: you won't be seeing the Falcons-Packers NFC Championship game replayed on NFL Network ever again, and but for the Patriot comeback you probably wouldn't have ever seen the Falcons-Patriots Super Bowl there either. I would rather have seen the Falcons win a classic game than a non-classic game. (I also would rather have seen them win a non-classic game than lose a classic game, of course.)

Incidentally, I suspect you've all discussed this elsewhere - I'm not mentally ready to read the other threads yet - but I'm not sure Falcons-Patriots belongs at the top of the list of classic Super Bowl games. I've seen it put there (e.g., by John Clayton at ESPN.com), but for me this was a great comeback with a great ending that wasn't a great game for most of its 60+ minutes.
 
The more impossible the situation for the Patriots, the less justification there for Atlanta to prioritize a knockout blow over clock and game management.
Atlanta is basically the boxer that is leading huge on points in like the 9th or 10th round and then tried to go for the killer knockout punch instead of just playing keep away and winning on a decision instead. The Patriots trailing knock the Falcons down in the 11th round twice (Hightower Sack, TD) In the 12th instead of milking the clock down and forcing the Pats to call the timeout they continue to try to engage the Patriots for a knock blow TD where the Pats counter with a knockdown (long TD drive to tie) followed by the Patriots knocking the Falcons out in overtime for the improbable win.
Atlanta wasn't looking for a knockout blow at the expense of a points victory - it was looking for the most efficient way of guaranteeing the points victory. The Falcons weren't leading huge on points going into the 11th round - they were effectively ahead by three rounds with two rounds to go. If they had completely turtled, not thrown any punches and tried to only lose 10-9 and 10-9, yeah, they might have won. Or maybe they lose a round 10-8 for not trying at all (i.e., the equivalent of missing a 45-yard field goal) and go on to lose the game anyway.

For the number of times I've heard people complain, here and elsewhere, that field goals of 40+ yards are not chip shots at the end of regulation or in overtime, you'd think people would be more sympathetic with the Falcons for trying not to settle for a field goal of 40+ yards.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
I didn't say I was lamenting the potential victory or proclaiming it as unworthy. I was just comparing the actual scenario to my dream scenario and noticing how the former had fallen short of the latter. Put it this way: you won't be seeing the Falcons-Packers NFC Championship game replayed on NFL Network ever again, and but for the Patriot comeback you probably wouldn't have ever seen the Falcons-Patriots Super Bowl there either. I would rather have seen the Falcons win a classic game than a non-classic game. (I also would rather have seen them win a non-classic game than lose a classic game, of course.)

Incidentally, I suspect you've all discussed this elsewhere - I'm not mentally ready to read the other threads yet - but I'm not sure Falcons-Patriots belongs at the top of the list of classic Super Bowl games. I've seen it put there (e.g., by John Clayton at ESPN.com), but for me this was a great comeback with a great ending that wasn't a great game for most of its 60+ minutes.
By virtue of the biggest comeback in the history of the super bowl by a factor of 1.5, it's automatically a classic game. It was a game that was won with 50 seconds on the clock, by a guy who is the greatest QB in history, who was the most SB's in the history of the QB position. Also making it a classic.

There is no way this game isn't in the top 10 of all time, probably top 5. There haven't been that many amazing super bowls. Sunday's game was amazing.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,260
It's also up to Matt Ryan to make bad plays not catastrophic. Did he throw the ball away once in this game?
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
I took a look at the Super Bowls.

In the 80's, there wasn't one really, really incredible Super Bowl. The two SF wins against Cinncy would be the top 2. Neither was as good as last Sunday. They were great, but only one of those games could be a classic, the Joe Montana "is that John Candy?" game. Still not the tippy top.

The 90s were a near disaster for Super bowls. So many egregious blowouts. The Giants Bills was probably the best game, that was pretty close to amazing. But not a classic, it was a grind 'em out game. And then there was the Elway helicopter game, which was pretty damn good, but not a true classic.

Things get better. The 00s had a number of awesome games. Rams v. Titans was the first "classic" game in decades. That bomb to Bruce after the Titans tied and then the Dyson gets tacked on the one on the last play of the game. That was legitimately awesome. The Pats beating the Rams was definitely a classic. The games against Carolina and Philly were great, close games, but not really classics. Giants/New England was a classic. That game was sick. Pitt/Arizona was awesome, probably not a classic, in my opinion. That's 6 games out of 10 that were legit.

And the 10's are also pretty good. Saints Colts was pretty awesome, the score is deceiving b/c of the pick 6, but that was a great game, plus the onside kick and the Saints winning after Katrina. That was good. Pack Steelers was perfectly cromulent but forgettable. Giants/Pats #2 was great, not a classic like game 1. Ravens/49ers was awesome, close to a classic. Seattle Denver was the worst game in 13 years. That was baaad. Seattle/NE was a classic game. The comeback was legit. The Kearse catch. And then the pick. Classic. Denver beating Carolina was a pretty lame game.

So if I'm ranking, Sunday's game is up there, versus those other classics listed above. Now that I look at it, it's definitely top 5.

This obviously ignores those Pitt and Dallas games, which were definitely classics, but I was 4 years old when they happened, so it's really hard to rank them. I guess we can throw out the 60s, because those games were all blowouts, although the Jets, an AFL team, winning as 17 point underdogs is a big deal for the league. So that was pretty good, but certainly not a classic football game. Those Miami wins were boring af. Minnesota losses were bad. So there isn't much in the 70s anyway.

So, in summary, Sunday's game was definitely a classic game when ranked against any decade or game.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,187
To me the biggest mistake the Falcons made was not running the play clock down in the 4th. There were multiple snaps they made with 15 or more seconds left on the play clock. Passing was fine after the ridiculous JJ toe tapper but they needed to be quick hitters. You can't take sacks or holding penalties in that situation and quick routes accomplishes that.
 
To me the biggest mistake the Falcons made was not running the play clock down in the 4th. There were multiple snaps they made with 15 or more seconds left on the play clock. Passing was fine after the ridiculous JJ toe tapper but they needed to be quick hitters. You can't take sacks or holding penalties in that situation and quick routes accomplishes that.
Agreed re: letting the play clock run down. But it's worth noting that the Patriots defense did an excellent job of cutting off the quick slants all game. Perhaps a quick flip to one of the wide receivers might have been the way to go...but that also brings being forced out of bounds and killing the clock into play. In general, I think the Patriots defense stopped the Falcons offense much more than I was expecting throughout the game, and that really limited Atlanta's options. (In particular, I thought obvious runs up the middle were likely to lose yardage in that situation, not least because Mack's injury was limiting his run-blocking effectiveness.)
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
Atlanta was on New England's 23 yard line with 3:50 left. The Pats just burned their first timeout. Run 2 more times for no gain and the Pats have no timeouts and about 3:20 left in the game. Make the 40 yard FG and the the Pats have about 3 minutes to march down the field, score a TD or FG, then recover the onsides kick, and score again. Miss the FG, and the Pats still have to drive 70 yards in about 3:00 with no timeouts, and then attempt the two pointer.
But the only TO that the Pats ended up using was the one they called after the sack! They finished regulation with two unspent. So a missed FG would have given the Pats the ball on the 30 vice the 9 - a far easier proposition.

This means the argument is down to which is more likely: that a pass play results in enough negative yardage to severely impact / eliminate the possibility of a FG (or results in a turnover) or that two runs results in a FG attempt which is missed? With Coleman out and Freeman ineffective running the ball in the 2H (5 rushes for 4 yards) but the passing game still clicking and with Ryan not having thrown an INT. The only offensive holding called on them to that point was, ironically, on a run play.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
It's also up to Matt Ryan to make bad plays not catastrophic. Did he throw the ball away once in this game?
This is where I am as well. He takes sacks to keep plays alive. He throws into perfect coverage, because he has Julio. He is aggressive "stand on their necks when you have them down". Those are all good things at times - and will even get you an MVP. But if he had a little more Jeff Hostetler (sp?) game manager in him he would likely have a superbowl win.

I'm not blaming him - but it is the same argument I made in the MVP thread. His (and the Falcons) aggression put up spectacular numbers - and yet at times it cost them wins because they couldn't or chose not to manage to the game when the situation appeared to call for it.

I love me some Matty Ice.. against anyone but the Patriots. But you live by the aggression sword and maybe 1 superbowl out of 100 you die by the sword as well. His 1 out of a 100 happened to be Sunday night.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,021
Imaginationland
According to FO, teams leading by 6-8 points with <5 minutes left in the game and having a 1st down inside their opponents 30 are a whopping 221-3 since 2000. Yeah, I'd say the Falcons fucked that part up, too.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/clutch-encounters/2017/clutch-encounters-super-bowl-li

Of those 3 losses, 2 of them involved the losing team making a FG, giving up a TD, then an onside kick, then a tying FG, then losing in OT. In the 3rd loss, the losing team missed the FG, gave up a tying TD, then lost in OT.
 

changer591

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
973
Shrewsbury, MA
I didn't mean "cursed" in the CHB sense. Just snakebitten, or unlucky, or sad. Atlanta is a sad sports town.

Re: Blank on the sidelines, Blank always comes down to the sidelines at the end of games, and his wife was with him for both playoff games. Not sure if you were aware of that, but there really wasn't anything weird to read into that.
I've heard this from multiple places and it definitely changes my mind on how to view him being on the sidelines since it's consistent with the past. However, that being said, it's easy to look at it as "Hey, we got this wrapped up...time to go celebrate down with all the players!"
Either way, I don't hold any hate toward him or the organization, and would rather see them succeed over the Packers (I got sick of the Rodgers love), the Cowboys (because...the Cowboys), or the Seahawks (lot of hate-able characters on that team).
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
According to FO, teams leading by 6-8 points with <5 minutes left in the game and having a 1st down inside their opponents 30 are a whopping 221-3 since 2000. Yeah, I'd say the Falcons fucked that part up, too.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/clutch-encounters/2017/clutch-encounters-super-bowl-li

Of those 3 losses, 2 of them involved the losing team making a FG, giving up a TD, then an onside kick, then a tying FG, then losing in OT. In the 3rd loss, the losing team missed the FG, gave up a tying TD, then lost in OT.
And all 3 of those games were 7 point leads, not 8.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,840
Unreal America
The games against Carolina and Philly were great, close games, but not really classics. .
I'll quibble with that characterization of the Panthers game. That was excellent. A defensive slobberknocker for most of the first half. And then a wild shootout in the 2nd half culminating in a last play win. Tremendous game.
 

GregHarris

beware my sexy helmet/overall ensemble
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2008
3,460
Rodney Harrison's pick 6 in the 2004 AFCCG, wasn't exactly a sprint once Big Ben got leveled.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I was talking about the decisions that game after the Falcons got inside the 25 with an 8-point lead (before the sack, holding call and incompletion forced them to punt of 4th and 33). If you're talking about the 3rd and 1 with over 8:30 left when Hightower strip-sacked Ryan for the fumble then I disagree even more.

Yes, the fumble was obviously a huge (sorry - I hate that word now...) a significant boost to the Pats' chances of a comeback. But if you're saying that the Falcons should have given up on passing the ball with 8 or 9 minutes left in the game because something bad might happen you're just plain wrong. Not only would running the ball there - and presumably every other down now that you've gone into kill-the-clock mode - led to a likely punt and thus a change of possession anyway, but you're conservativeness would mean that they'd likely go 3-and-out again the next possession so no Freeman 39 yard gain nor JJ's 27 yard miracle catch. So the time you saved by avoiding the fumble (which was never likely to happen) would have been given back by punting from your own end on the last possession instead of backing the Pats up to their own 9.

In fact, the way I see it instead of requiring the Pats D to make a strip sack (and recover it), another sack for a 12 yard loss and a holding penalty to give the Offense the slim chance it had to tie the game, your strategy would have merely required the D to stop the run on 2 drives when you made it blindingly obvious that that was all you were going to do. I think your play calling would have given the Pats a better chance, not worse, than Shanahan's.

Agree that passing was fine with 8 or 9 minutes left, disagree about what should have happened inside the 25 with an 8 point lead. The field goal is short enough that running and kicking a FG isnt too conservative there and burning all the Pats TO's is optimal.
 

GregHarris

beware my sexy helmet/overall ensemble
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2008
3,460
According to FO, teams leading by 6-8 points with <5 minutes left in the game and having a 1st down inside their opponents 30 are a whopping 221-3 since 2000. Yeah, I'd say the Falcons fucked that part up, too.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/clutch-encounters/2017/clutch-encounters-super-bowl-li

Of those 3 losses, 2 of them involved the losing team making a FG, giving up a TD, then an onside kick, then a tying FG, then losing in OT. In the 3rd loss, the losing team missed the FG, gave up a tying TD, then lost in OT.
Wow. That article really highlights the disparity in coaching in this league, or at least how much better BB is than everyone else.