The Goat Thread: SBLII vs Eagles

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Jesus Fucking Christ this is tiresome.

I don't know how anyone can actually look at what Foles did this year and think "He might not be a good QB." When Kaepernick got the 49ers to the Super Bowl, guess what? HE WAS A GOOD QB.

My goodness. I'm not thrilled the Pats lost too, and the defense was trash, but trying to denigrate Foles' quality of play to shit on the Pats' defense more is ridiculous.
I didn't say he is a shit QB. He played quite well and tore up the Pats. I am saying he just may not be a good QB overall. Do you think Joe Flacco is elite because he went batshit crazy during his SB run? This is not that wild of a take but you insist on claiming Nick Foles is a good QB, and presumably will be moving forward, based off how he did in three games in the playoffs, one game against the Giants, and one amazing season five years ago when he hadn't done anything in the four season prior. Not sure what is so scorching about this.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
It's a dumb take.

It's dumb because it makes the assumption that the defense just let some scrub walk all over them. Dude played a hell of a game, and not just him. Their whole offence played like a Super Bowl team. They had a great game plan and executed, all night, for 60 minutes. Yes, I have no doubt the Pats' defense should/would/could have done much better, but the bottom line is, they didn't. They were off balance all game and the Eagles, and Foles, had a little something to do with that.

I realize it's easy to fall into this notion that every win or loss is because of what the Pats did or didn't do, but with any matchup, both teams contribute. This isn't some crappy team that didn't deserve to win. They stepped right up against the Pats and they beat 'em. Straight up, fair game. Foles didn't play like a "backup". He played like an all-pro QB. How he does in the future or how he played in the past don't factor into it. The defense didn't give the game away, they got beat, consistently, for 60 minutes.

Every Pats win has a moment or two of good fortune. That's just how it goes. But we celebrate those wins and our dominance because the Pats were able to hang in there and take advantage of the other team's mistakes. That's exactly what the Eagles did to the Pats. That "backup" didn't make a single mistake for 60 minutes. He threaded needles and executed some ballsy plays when the game was on the line. He wasn't like a deer in the headlights. He didn't look lost or outmatched. He was not a "backup". He was the Super Bowl MVP.
He really did play great. He got help. The OL was perfect - partly because the refs didn't call a single hold on either team (which obviously also benefitted the Pats' OL) - as they didn't allow any sacks and only one hit on Foles all night long. It's amazing what QBs can do in this league if they literally never get hit when they drop back to throw.

But more than that, the RBs were very good pounding the rock. And their receivers made a handful of AMAZING catches. One down the sideline. One early in the game over the middle. The deep TD to Jeffery. The TD to Clement (which wasn't a TD, but it was still a great throw and catch). I mean, the Eagles completely a LOT of passes to receivers that were totally blanketed. Not that the Pats' defense played well, because they didn't. But consider the Atlanta Super Bowl and the four catches Julio Jones made. One was pretty good and three were incredible - including maybe the greatest non-fluke catch I've ever seen. The D on all those was really good, but Ryan threw perfect passes and Jones made incredible catches.

On not a small number of plays this Sunday, the coverage was right there, but Foles made a great throw and the receiver made an incredible catch. For huge yards (and two TDs).

Philly earned the win. On those plays the Pats' defense was excellent, but as they often say, good offense beats good defense. Credit to Philly. Don't forget that Philly just obliterated the #1 ranked defense in the league in the NFCCG so it's not like they weren't capable of this.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Agree with SJH. Foles had a very good year this year, and an outstanding run in the playoffs. The basic stats quoted above don't lie. He did not play like the same QB that he was under the clueless Jeff Fischer.

The intervening years are certainly relevant if you want to project Foles' future going forward. Or if you want to debate his legacy. There will likely be debates about Foles in other fanboards if and when the Eagles make him (or, less likely, Wentz) available this offseason.

In any event, he's clearly got the skills to put together a stretch of good games, which is what happened this year. His ceiling is still far higher than Mark Sanchez.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
True, but special teams was probably worse than the defense. So coupled with questionable coaching decisions (not counting Butler here but the two decisions to kick / not kick FGs in the 2nd Qtr) they squandered up to 11 points. This put it all on Brady and he still almost did it.
Special teams was awful but in no way was it in the same stratosphere as how bad the defense was. They went 1 for 2 on FGs; if the D had a 50% hit rate we'd still be drinking champagne.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Jesus Tapdancing Christ this is tiresome.

I don't know how anyone can actually look at what Foles did this year and think "He might not be a good QB." When Kaepernick got the 49ers to the Super Bowl, guess what? HE WAS A GOOD QB.

My goodness. I'm not thrilled the Pats lost too, and the defense was trash, but trying to denigrate Foles' quality of play to shit on the Pats' defense more is ridiculous.
Or maybe just give the guy a little bit of credit for playing a near-perfect game on a huge stage against a good team. Who cares if he's just good, or temporarily good, or a Hall of Famer?

He played great on Sunday.
 

JMDurron

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,127
I blame Amendola. Brady was WIDE OPEN. Don't lead him so much. AARGH.




Basically this game turned on their receiver being more accurate than our receiver. Dang. Danny Amendola, you KNOW not to jump when you throw. Set your dang feet.
I partly blame this on Chris Long sniffing out the play and making Amendola loft it up higher than he had initially wanted to due to Long being in the throwing lane. Still not a great pass though.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
The Flacco comparison is kind of interesting. By Y/A, TD %, and INT %, Foles has had a better career, statistically. Additionally, Flacco has only won 1 playoff game since their title. It doesn't really matter if Foles is "good" or not. Flacco beat a bunch of good teams in the playoffs that year, just like Foles did this year. QBs can go on hot runs. It doesn't mean that it was some epic fuckup by the teams that got beat. I doubt the Broncos or Niners are thinking OMG how did we ever let JOE FLACCO beat us in a playoff game.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
Special teams was awful but in no way was it in the same stratosphere as how bad the defense was. They went 1 for 2 on FGs; if the D had a 50% hit rate we'd still be drinking champagne.
Missing an XP, missing a FG, horrible coverage on kickoffs, and a horrendous kickoff return. Special teams were obviously a much smaller part of the game, but for their part they were terrible.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
How was kickoff coverage horrible? I'm pretty sure the Eagles started somewhere between the 20 and 30 for every returned kick so if anything it was average.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Missing an XP, missing a FG, horrible coverage on kickoffs, and a horrendous kickoff return. Special teams were obviously a much smaller part of the game, but for their part they were terrible.
There was an issue with the LII logos and how they and the hash marks were painted on the fields. Screwed up both missed XPs.

As for the missed FG, yeah. That's on Cardona.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
Totally agree. Which is why i think Pederson does deserves all the hummers coming his way. He made the calls that most coaches can't bring themselves to make against the Pats. Those 4th down calls took brass balls.
On the first 4th down call, the play call itself is where the brass balls comes in. As others have said, he'd be roasted if it did not work considering all the other offensive options he had at his disposal.

The second one IMO came down to he did not trust his defense's ability to stop Brady and the Patriots, so he took a shot there and it paid off. Either that or he was supremely confident the Patriots would not be able to stop his offense.

All the Patriots defense had to do was make one fucking play, just one; a tipped/broken up pass, a deflection, a sack; Christ, any sort of pressure could have changed the outcome at any point. It was beyond infuriating to see the defense over and over again fail to do their job and get off the field on third down, specifically on that second to last Eagles drive, watching that unfold after the Patriots had finally take the lead was excruciating.

It's beyond my comprehension that they had two weeks to find a way to stop the Eagles offense and that shitshow of a performance was the end result, they failed to do what Belichick defenses prior to were famous for; taking away the one thing the opposing offense liked to do best. This defense failed miserably at creating turnovers as well, something else prior defenses were good at.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I partly blame this on Chris Long sniffing out the play and making Amendola loft it up higher than he had initially wanted to due to Long being in the throwing lane. Still not a great pass though.
Oh man, maybe that poster was right about players switching teams and knowing all the tricks...
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
It's beyond my comprehension that they had two weeks to find a way to stop the Eagles offense and that shitshow of a performance was the end result, they failed to do what Belichick defenses prior to were famous for; taking away the one thing the opposing offense liked to do best.
This is why all of the Butler talk is frustrating to me. Sure, he might have helped. But the complete lack of competitiveness across the board was jarring.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
On the first 4th down call, the play call itself is where the brass balls comes in. As others have said, he'd be roasted if it did not work considering all the other offensive options he had at his disposal.

The second one IMO came down to he did not trust his defense's ability to stop Brady and the Patriots, so he took a shot there and it paid off. Either that or he was supremely confident the Patriots would not be able to stop his offense.

All the Patriots defense had to do was make one fucking play, just one; a tipped/broken up pass, a deflection, a sack; Christ, any sort of pressure could have changed the outcome at any point. It was beyond infuriating to see the defense over and over again fail to do their job and get off the field on third down, specifically on that second to last Eagles drive, watching that unfold after the Patriots had finally take the lead was excruciating.

It's beyond my comprehension that they had two weeks to find a way to stop the Eagles offense and that shitshow of a performance was the end result, they failed to do what Belichick defenses prior to were famous for; taking away the one thing the opposing offense liked to do best. This defense failed miserably at creating turnovers as well, something else prior defenses were good at.
In real time I thought that 2nd 4th down call was a huge unforced error by Pederson, the kind that has us always saying, "Thank God for the quality of the opposing coach". Eagles in their own territory with 5 and a half minutes to go, down by 1. Is there any doubt if that 4th wasn't made, the game was over? On 1 freaking call? If I were an Eagles fan I'd have been apoplectic.

Punt the ball away and give your vaunted defense a chance to get the ball back with plenty of time left, possibly in great field position. No brainer.

If that 4th down hadn't succeeded, Pederson would be up there with Carroll and others who handed games to the Patriots in the final quarter.

Football's an excruciating game.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
In real time I thought that 2nd 4th down call was a huge unforced error by Pederson, the kind that has us always saying, "Thank God for the quality of the opposing coach". Eagles in their own territory with 5 and a half minutes to go, down by 1. Is there any doubt if that 4th wasn't made, the game was over? On 1 freaking call? If I were an Eagles fan I'd have been apoplectic.

Punt the ball away and give your vaunted defense a chance to get the ball back with plenty of time left, possibly in great field position. No brainer.

If that 4th down hadn't succeeded, Pederson would be up there with Carroll and others who handed games to the Patriots in the final quarter.

Football's an excruciating game.
It was the equivalent of BB's 4th and 2. It wasn't a coach choking. The Pats offense had driven for 3 consecutive TDs, fairly easily.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
How was kickoff coverage horrible? I'm pretty sure the Eagles started somewhere between the 20 and 30 for every returned kick so if anything it was average.
I think horrible is strong but the typical high Gost kick to the goal line and cover it didn't work as well as it had been. Typically they had managed to cover those and keep their opponents near the 15 while during the super bowl the Eagles got it out to the 25 or so on multiple occasions.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,401
Overland Park, KS
I haven't read this whole thread because depression and all. I wonder if BB will reconsider his love for big LBs going forward. Besides Roberts all those guys are around 6' 3" and 250 lbs. Maybe its time for guys who can cover a wheel route. They could really use a Deion Jones type.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
In real time I thought that 2nd 4th down call was a huge unforced error by Pederson, the kind that has us always saying, "Thank God for the quality of the opposing coach". Eagles in their own territory with 5 and a half minutes to go, down by 1. Is there any doubt if that 4th wasn't made, the game was over? On 1 freaking call? If I were an Eagles fan I'd have been apoplectic.

Punt the ball away and give your vaunted defense a chance to get the ball back with plenty of time left, possibly in great field position. No brainer.

If that 4th down hadn't succeeded, Pederson would be up there with Carroll and others who handed games to the Patriots in the final quarter.

Football's an excruciating game.
I remember thinking he's either going to be hailed as a genius if this works or a complete and utter moron if it does not.

As you said, if it didn't work, you're basically handing the game to the Patriots at that point.

Initially I viewed it as a panic move, but I now view it as he clearly had no fear that the Patriots would be able to stop them.

He coached without fear the whole game, kudos to him that all of his decisions paid off.

Credit where credit is due, have to tip my cap to him.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
In real time I thought that 2nd 4th down call was a huge unforced error by Pederson, the kind that has us always saying, "Thank God for the quality of the opposing coach". Eagles in their own territory with 5 and a half minutes to go, down by 1. Is there any doubt if that 4th wasn't made, the game was over? On 1 freaking call? If I were an Eagles fan I'd have been apoplectic.

Punt the ball away and give your vaunted defense a chance to get the ball back with plenty of time left, possibly in great field position. No brainer.

If that 4th down hadn't succeeded, Pederson would be up there with Carroll and others who handed games to the Patriots in the final quarter.

Football's an excruciating game.
Good point, and why I think the blame goes to the players on defense for their lack of execution rather than BB and Patricia (Butler decision excepted).

Last year Quinn and Shanahan were roasted for their aggressive play calling while holding a lead late. Hightower's strip sack and Butler's huge tackle on a 3rd down play come to mind as key plays. If Hightower's a step late and Ryan hits that open guy, Quinn is getting all the praise that Pederson is getting now - you can't turtle up against the Patriots.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I remember thinking he's either going to be hailed as a genius if this works or a complete and utter moron if it does not.

As you said, if it didn't work, you're basically handing the game to the Patriots at that point.

Initially I viewed it as a panic move, but I now view it as he clearly had no fear that the Patriots would be able to stop them.

He coached without fear the whole game, kudos to him that all of his decisions paid off.

Credit where credit is due, have to tip my cap to him.
What’s Pederson’s most recent notable quote? Paraphrasing, “Playing conservatively is a good way to go 8 and 8.” I’ll defer to Eagles’ colleagues here but I saw enough of their football this season to know he would roll like this. Said it several times in one or more of these threads — we were not going to Doug Marrone our way to another title. Pederson was going to be on the attack always, and it was not going to be a comfortable game.

He was smart enough to realize BOTH defenses were pitiful helpless giants.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
I haven't read this whole thread because depression and all. I wonder if BB will reconsider his love for big LBs going forward. Besides Roberts all those guys are around 6' 3" and 250 lbs. Maybe its time for guys who can cover a wheel route. They could really use a Deion Jones type.
Someone in this forum recently posted a list of players that the Pats could have drafted with the lost 1st-round pick from Deflategate.

It's simplistic for sure, but guys like Deion Jones and Myles Jack certainly popped out from that list.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Someone in this forum recently posted a list of players that the Pats could have drafted with the lost 1st-round pick from Deflategate.

It's simplistic for sure, but guys like Deion Jones and Myles Jack certainly popped out from that list.
You mean the kind of guys we consistently smack our foreheads about because B.B. trades out?

More seriously, you can’t do that. Every team has fans with horror lists of guys passed over in favor of guys taken. We DO know it hurt. We can’t attach specific players to measure the magnitude of the loss.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,769
Hartford, CT
You mean the kind of guys we consistently smack our foreheads about because B.B. trades out?

More seriously, you can’t do that. Every team has fans with horror lists of guys passed over in favor of guys taken. We DO know it hurt. We can’t attach specific players to measure the magnitude of the loss.
Yeah, I mean, the C's could have Giannis on the team if they didn't take Kelly Olynyk.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
I remember thinking he's either going to be hailed as a genius if this works or a complete and utter moron if it does not.

As you said, if it didn't work, you're basically handing the game to the Patriots at that point.

Initially I viewed it as a panic move, but I now view it as he clearly had no fear that the Patriots would be able to stop them.

He coached without fear the whole game, kudos to him that all of his decisions paid off.

Credit where credit is due, have to tip my cap to him.
I thought it was a no-brainer for Pederson. His defense hadn’t forced a punt all night, and had given up touchdowns on 4 of 5 the last 5 Patriots drives with the only “stop” coming when the Patriots got the ball with 30 seconds left in the 1st half. Punting was probably a death sentence.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I thought it was a no-brainer for Pederson. His defense hadn’t forced a punt all night, and had given up touchdowns on 4 of 5 the last 5 Patriots drives with the only “stop” coming when the Patriots got the ball with 30 seconds left in the 1st half. Punting was probably a death sentence.
I don't think it was in game specific at all. I think he came into the game having seen what happened to the Falcons (last year), and to the Jaguars this year, and looked at the roster and saw #12 and said I'm going to be aggressive in any situation that I can be aggressive in. I think they probably did all the math ahead of time, and said things like: 4 and X from the Y yard line in, and we are going for it. Playing the Patriots can be like death from a thousand self-inflicted paper cuts and he didn't want any part of it.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,250
Again, it's clear Bill has fallen behind on this type of offense for awhile now, and it cost us a Super Bowl this time because the NFC champion had the personnel to run it. football is as matchup-based a sport as anything.

and yes Pederson made all the right calls. Tom was so good last night punting with 5 minutes left would have more than 50/50 led to a 8 point deficit (and they ended up going 0/2 in two point conversions). combined with our defense on 3rd down and that was an easy call
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,530
In the simulacrum
One of the things I was thinking about through the game -- that the fourth down call in their own territory was "exhibit A" for -- was that Pedersen seemed committed to some high risk/high reward underdog strategies for the game that you simply would not do if you thought you were the more powerful team (I think it has been called the "David Strategy" vs the Goliath strategy).

It may have simply been an exercise in them feeling (correctly) that the Pats could not stop them at all, but it at times I was amazed by how risky they were. Good for them, I guess.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
I partly blame this on Chris Long sniffing out the play and making Amendola loft it up higher than he had initially wanted to due to Long being in the throwing lane. Still not a great pass though.
I said it right after the play happened and I'll continue believing this until the day I die: the problem with the play was that Amendola threw it on the run instead of stopping and setting his feet. He had plenty of time to do that but for whatever reason (nerves? excitement?) he threw it mid-stride. If he stops and sets his feet, I think it's an easy completion. No one was anywhere near Brady and Amendola was in no danger of being sacked. But he rushed it, unnecessarily. Was a great call that should have worked, but they couldn't execute. As opposed to....

On the first 4th down call, the play call itself is where the brass balls comes in. As others have said, he'd be roasted if it did not work considering all the other offensive options he had at his disposal.
I understand that a lot of Pats fans don't want to re-watch any play from this game but, as a football junkie, I thought this was pretty cool: Foles was the one who called for the trick play. Pederson pauses for a second and then says: "Yeah, let's do it." Pretty awesome stuff.


I don't think it was in game specific at all. I think he came into the game having seen what happened to the Falcons (last year), and to the Jaguars this year, and looked at the roster and saw #12 and said I'm going to be aggressive in any situation that I can be aggressive in. I think they probably did all the math ahead of time, and said things like: 4 and X from the Y yard line in, and we are going for it. Playing the Patriots can be like death from a thousand self-inflicted paper cuts and he didn't want any part of it.
I don't understand this. The Falcons didn't turtle up; they continued being aggressive. It didn't work and because of that, they were roasted for it.

The Eagles were aggressive all game long, it worked, and now it is being celebrated. They basically went after the Patriots with a similar mindset that the Falcons did. But because it worked for the Eagles and not the Falcons, Pederson is a ballsy genius and Quinn is an idiot. Ditto for Pete Carroll: gets aggressive at the goalline, it doesn't work, and people call him loony. His thought process actually made sense but nobody cares. They lost, ergo it was a bad call.

It's almost like most sports fans care more about the results than the thought process behind the actions. Weird.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
-- snip--
I don't understand this. The Falcons didn't turtle up; they continued being aggressive. It didn't work and because of that, they were roasted for it.

The Eagles were aggressive all game long, it worked, and now it is being celebrated. They basically went after the Patriots with a similar mindset that the Falcons did. But because it worked for the Eagles and not the Falcons, Pederson is a ballsy genius and Quinn is an idiot. Ditto for Pete Carroll: gets aggressive at the goalline, it doesn't work, and people call him loony. His thought process actually made sense but nobody cares. They lost, ergo it was a bad call.

It's almost like most sports fans care more about the results than the thought process behind the actions. Weird.
The Falcons didn't turtle up? Maybe it's the label? The Falcons stopped being aggressive and started running to kill the clock in the second half. They didn't maintain their aggressiveness offensively [they didn't establish their lead mainly running the ball]. If they had, the Patriots likely run out of time and there is no completed comeback. The Eagles just kept their foot on the gas pedal in all situations, resulting in a win.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
The Falcons didn't turtle up? Maybe it's the label? The Falcons stopped being aggressive and started running to kill the clock in the second half. They didn't maintain their aggressiveness offensively [they didn't establish their lead mainly running the ball]. If they had, the Patriots likely run out of time and there is no completed comeback. The Eagles just kept their foot on the gas pedal in all situations, resulting in a win.
You must have watched a different game than everyone else did because the bolded absolutely did not happen. In fact, they were killed by the media for not running the ball and trying to kill clock.

They were throwing on 3rd-and-1 and got stripped sacked. That opened the door to the comeback.

Then they threw again when they were in FG range (a FG that would have basically sealed the game) and Ryan got sacked. Then the holding penalty happened and we all know where it went from there.

The Falcons absolutely continued being aggressive. For better or worse.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The Falcons didn't turtle up? Maybe it's the label? The Falcons stopped being aggressive and started running to kill the clock in the second half. They didn't maintain their aggressiveness offensively [they didn't establish their lead mainly running the ball]. If they had, the Patriots likely run out of time and there is no completed comeback. The Eagles just kept their foot on the gas pedal in all situations, resulting in a win.
I think you're misremembering last year's Super Bowl. The Falcons continued to throw a lot with the lead.
 

bigsid05

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,327
The Falcons didn't turtle up? Maybe it's the label? The Falcons stopped being aggressive and started running to kill the clock in the second half. They didn't maintain their aggressiveness offensively [they didn't establish their lead mainly running the ball]. If they had, the Patriots likely run out of time and there is no completed comeback. The Eagles just kept their foot on the gas pedal in all situations, resulting in a win.
Yea, I have to pile on. This is absolute revisionist history. The Falcons tried to stay aggressive and it cost them dearly.

The Eagles did the same thing but executed better, and it worked. They played INCREDIBLY well on offense, most of the deep throws were both excellent throws and somewhat tough catches.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Soxy Brown, Super Nomario, bigsid05 et al,

I'll back track on this one... In my mind one of the early drives in the 4th Atlanta started with 2 straight runs by Coleman (followed by Hightower sack when Ryan was obviously in shotgun). I checked off in my mind that they were going to try to run the clock down the rest of the way.

I just went back and looked at the play by play, and it is clear that there was still a lot of passing going on by Atlanta, I just didn't remember it that way.

Thanks for correcting an obvious error on my part!
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
The Falcons were piled on because they stayed aggressive and the Patriots eventually won.

The Seahawks were piled on because they got creative at the goal line and the Patriots eventually won.

The Eagles are getting praised because they got aggressive and creative at the goal line and the Eagles eventually won.

I sense a pattern here.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
The Falcons were piled on because they stayed aggressive and the Patriots eventually won.

The Seahawks were piled on because they got creative at the goal line and the Patriots eventually won.

The Eagles are getting praised because they got aggressive and creative at the goal line and the Eagles eventually won.

I sense a pattern here.
Exactly. In the Seattle Super Bowl, BB gets praised for keeping his cool on the sideline and not calling time out. That's because it worked. If they lost, people would have been RIPPING him for not calling the time out and not leaving the Pats with enough time to come back and kick a tying field goal.

It's all about whether it works or not. This is a results-oriented world. If Pederson's goal line gamble failed (which it could have), if Pederson's choice to go for it on fourth down late in the game didn't work (which it could have), nobody thinks he's this genius who went toe-to-toe with Belichick.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Exactly. In the Seattle Super Bowl, BB gets praised for keeping his cool on the sideline and not calling time out. That's because it worked. If they lost, people would have been RIPPING him for not calling the time out and not leaving the Pats with enough time to come back and kick a tying field goal.

It's all about whether it works or not. This is a results-oriented world. If Pederson's goal line gamble failed (which it could have), if Pederson's choice to go for it on fourth down late in the game didn't work (which it could have), nobody thinks he's this genius who went toe-to-toe with Belichick.
I won’t use genius label, but even if those two moves fail, Pederson gets a solid A from me. Know your team; know the situation. He is too smart and ornery to admit it but certainly after the Pats worked the bugs out early, Pederson knew his defense was fucked. This was the only way he was going to win this game.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I won’t use genius label, but even if those two moves fail, Pederson gets a solid A from me. Know your team; know the situation. He is too smart and ornery to admit it but certainly after the Pats worked the bugs out early, Pederson knew his defense was fucked. This was the only way he was going to win this game.
I wish the Patriots had tried something - anything - different on defense. They were getting absolutely shredded by Philly. If that's the case, why the hell not try some exotic blitzes? So what if you get burned for 40 yards? At that point it just didn't matter.
 

speedracer

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,832
QB hiding behind the OL really helps the play out. This time Brady took the snap from shotgun and had to run by Chris Long, who peeled back and gave Amendola a slightly more difficult throw, as was mentioned earlier.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,027
Pederson betting on his offense over his D there reminds me of the intentional safety, among other times, when Belichick bet on his D.

Smart football.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,626
Springfield, VA
There were probably half a dozen times on Sunday when I saw what Pederson decided and thought to myself, "Yep, that's the way to beat Belichick, crap, why couldn't we have another Doug Marrone or Andy Reid on the opposite sideline?
 

PedraMartina

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
80
Los Angeles
The Falcons were piled on because they stayed aggressive and the Patriots eventually won.

The Seahawks were piled on because they got creative at the goal line and the Patriots eventually won.

The Eagles are getting praised because they got aggressive and creative at the goal line and the Eagles eventually won.

I sense a pattern here.
That may be the pattern as to why the piling on/praise occurs, but I think the actual merits of the respective positions in those three instances differ markedly.

Seahawks: Attempting a pass there was absolutely reasonable, for lots of reasons, including that Lynch, despite his rep, was far from a sure thing in a 1-or-2-to-go situation. I think that the particular pass attempted was a mistake, but it still took an absolutely incredible play (and preparation) to stop it. Verdict: piling on unwarranted.

Eagles: This was absolutely the right approach to take when playing a TB-led team. I always pray for more conservative play-calling from Pats opponents, and I dread the greater variance that the approach Pederson took generates. Verdict: praise very warranted.

Falcons: The key here is that playing true situational football requires more information than, "We have a lead, so we should do [X]." The Falcons obviously took the view that they had gotten to where they were by playing aggressive, and that they should not let up on the gas. I think that was reasonable--for a while. But you eventually reach a point in a game where the amount of your lead, and the amount of time left on the clock, dictates that you take steps to limit the variance in possible outcomes that might lead to a flukish loss. We have seen the Pats do this for years--the so-called "bend but don't break" approach becomes even more extreme in the fourth quarter when they have a big lead, because if you concede 8 yards per play, and make sure not to give up any home runs, there isn't enough time on the clock to come back. That's why the Falcons deserved all of the piling on--they reached a point where they needed to stop dropping back and passing, because the Pats were not going to have enough time to come back. Verdict: piling on absolutely warranted.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Outstanding post above. The Eagles never reached the Falcons' stage of being able to put the game away through conservative play.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Outstanding post above. The Eagles never reached the Falcons' stage of being able to put the game away through conservative play.
They did reach that point - after the fumble, when they just ran three times and kicked the FG rather than try to salt the game away on O. And it was probably the right move there.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,016
Chelmsford, MA
I dislike a lot of the posts above about the outcomes determining the reputation because it makes the success of the plays called seem to be something more like a coin flip. Coaches are in charge of their teams and practice execution. A well coached team can execute their plays and get the outcomes they're looking for. There's always an element of luck and the other team also executing well or better but the difference here is not just that PHI succeeded when others failed with a similar strategy. PHI had designed and practiced their plays to an extent where they could execute them without fail in a high stakes environment. They deserve credit for that. The play wasn't on tape, wasn't something the Patriots expected because it was their tendency, etc. They just lined up and executed relentlessly all night.