** UPDATE** Official 2014-15 NFL 'U LOST Bro'-owl Thread** Pats are SB Champs!!

[emperus]

They're not overrated, Michael Bennett dominated the Pats O-line. It's just the Patriots match up well against the one weakness the Seahawks D has - can't cover the short crossing routes and small, quick, shifty guys like Edelman. Brady didn't throw at the Seahawks best corners, he just took advantage of the matchups (Gronk against a LB and Edelman vs 4th string backup corner).

Michael Bennett so called dominated the Pats O-line and Brady didn't throw at the best corners, yet Brady had over 300 yards and 4 TD's. If you have a D that exposes your team to that who cares who he throws at or how dominant your DL is. I find that comment ridiculous. You are not a dominant D if you give up those many yards in a championship game. And since everyone said the were competing for the Best D in history, yes, they were overrated.

 

[Shlong]

Did we watch the same game? Lane's replacement wasn't covering every single one of BRady's completions. And I guarantee if Lane was in the game, he would have been shat on as well, you know why? Because Brady is the best Quarterback to have played the game.

Now back to Seattle being overrated. How many points did the greatest defenses of history give up? The Ravens during their run? The Steel Curtain? Like I said Seattle's D was overrated based on the terrible Offenses they played at the end of the season. They gave up 4 TD's and over 300 yards to a QB with hardly no running game.

Now when Belichick benched Arrington, how many points did Seattle score? 0. Because WIlson, couldn't throw those LOBS anymore and he reverted back to the quarterback he was the 1st quarter.

Btw, you guys were only at the goal line on some Bullshit catch.

And yes contract conspiracy with the call. Why else would you think they would make such a stupid call? They have two agendas. Score and run the clock. And so they throw a pass from the 1? yeah right. THey didn't want Lynch winning that game or it would be harder not to pay him or even release him. You should probably know more about your team. I bet if you watch the post game analysis others will make the same point.

Now act like the losers your team are and go hide..

That Ravens team went against Kerry Collins in the Super Bowl. How many points and offensive yards would this Seahawks team give up against Kerry Collins? The Steel Curtain was a different brand of football being played and the rules weren't tailored to favor offenses like they are now and not that many high-octane offenses. It's comparing apples to oranges.

Michael Bennett so called dominated the Pats O-line and Brady didn't throw at the best corners, yet Brady had over 300 yards and 4 TD's. If you have a D that exposes your team to that who cares who he throws at or how dominant your DL is. I find that comment ridiculous. You are not a dominant D if you give up those many yards in a championship game. And since everyone said the were competing for the Best D in history, yes, they were overrated.

So, I guess you're discrediting the Patriots. I mean if they beat a team with one of the greatest defenses of all time it would be saying something but no, they only beat an overrated defense. If Lane is in the game, who knows if the Patriots win or not but I do know they took full advantage once he was out of the game and Tharold Simon gave up 3 of Brady's 4 touchdowns.

 

[emperus]

That Ravens team went against Kerry Collins in the Super Bowl. How many points and offensive yards would this Seahawks team give up against Kerry Collins? The Steel Curtain was a different brand of football being played and the rules weren't tailored to favor offenses like they are now and not that many high-octane offenses. It's comparing apples to oranges.



So, I guess you're discrediting the Patriots. I mean if they beat a team with one of the greatest defenses of all time it would be saying something but no, they only beat an overrated defense. If Lane is in the game, who knows if the Patriots win or not but I do know they took full advantage once he was out of the game and Tharold Simon gave up 3 of Brady's 4 touchdowns.

So you think the defense you saw tonight was one of the best of all time? The Patriots play whomever is in front of them. And they've been doing it all season.

Russell Wilson was 12-21. And I believe most of those completions were against Arrington. The rest of the D played well, wasn't their best game, but played well outside of Arrington. I'll give Carrol the credit for that, matching up Mathews against Arrington who isn't know for his deep cover skills. But when he was benched, how many completions did Wilson have against Malcolm Butler?

If you watch many of the Pats games, they do that to everyone they play.

And again the Seahawks D was overrated

 

[manly]

So, I guess you're discrediting the Patriots. I mean if they beat a team with one of the greatest defenses of all time it would be saying something but no, they only beat an overrated defense. If Lane is in the game, who knows if the Patriots win or not but I do know they took full advantage once he was out of the game and Tharold Simon gave up 3 of Brady's 4 touchdowns.

His point wasn't to diminish the Pats victory but that all-time great D's don't have a weakness and don't allow 28 points in a title game.

I think part of Seattle's problem is scheme, their weakness against the short passing game is well known and they didn't adjust to fortify it during the game. By scheme I mean that Richard Sherman always guards his side of the field, instead of guarding the other team's best receiver wherever he goes.

Also, why was Simon CB2 after Lane went down? They moved Byron Maxwell inside so that some scrub could get raped on the outside?

Before I forget, going into the game, it was clear part of the Seahawks problem were injuries to the Legion of Boom. A year ago they were no doubt an elite defensive unit. This year, still pretty damn good but not quite the same.

 

[Shlong]

So you think the defense you saw tonight was one of the best of all time? The Patriots play whomever is in front of them. And they've been doing it all season.

Russell Wilson was 12-21. And I believe most of those completions were against Arrington. The rest of the D played well, wasn't their best game, but played well outside of Arrington. I'll give Carrol the credit for that, matching up Mathews against Arrington who isn't know for his deep cover skills. But when he was benched, how many completions did Wilson have against Malcolm Butler?

If you watch many of the Pats games, they do that to everyone they play.

And again the Seahawks D was overrated

I will say that a full, healthy Seahawks D is one of the best of all time. But these were both two evenly matched up ball clubs who both struggled early, both lost to the Chiefs (Patriots actually got purely dominated in that game) and excelled in the second half. They were both evenly matched up and if not for one of the most dumbest play calls of all time could've been back to back champions but in the end, their mistakes cost them.

 

[emperus]

I will say that a full, healthy Seahawks D is one of the best of all time. But these were both two evenly matched up ball clubs who both struggled early, both lost to the Chiefs (Patriots actually got purely dominated in that game) and excelled in the second half. They were both evenly matched up and if not for one of the most dumbest play calls of all time could've been back to back champions but in the end, their mistakes cost them.

The Pats played a better game and were the better team tonight outside a handful of Wilson jump balls. They were not evenly matched unless you were watching a different game. The final score always doesn't depict how the two teams played throughout the game.

And you can't be serious if you think this D is the best of all time. What you saw with the Pats were a team not scared to take it to anyone and the score reflected that. What happened to all the big hits that would scare this team?

 

[Shlong]

His point wasn't to diminish the Pats victory but that all-time great D's don't have a weakness and don't allow 28 points in a title game.

I think part of Seattle's problem is scheme, their weakness against the short passing game is well known and they didn't adjust to fortify it during the game. By scheme I mean that Richard Sherman always guards his side of the field, instead of guarding the other team's best receiver wherever he goes.

Also, why was Simon CB2 after Lane went down? They moved Byron Maxwell inside so that some scrub could get raped on the outside?

Before I forget, going into the game, it was clear part of the Seahawks problem were injuries to the Legion of Boom. A year ago they were no doubt an elite defensive unit. This year, still pretty damn good but not quite the same.

The 1978 Steelers gave up 31 points in the title game (but won against Roger Staubach). The Seahawks don't do anything fancy, they just line up and play but when they're not completely healthy they can't play like they really want to and that was exploited tonight.

 

[emperus]

His point wasn't to diminish the Pats victory but that all-time great D's don't have a weakness and don't allow 28 points in a title game.

I think part of Seattle's problem is scheme, their weakness against the short passing game is well known and they didn't adjust to fortify it during the game. By scheme I mean that Richard Sherman always guards his side of the field, instead of guarding the other team's best receiver wherever he goes.

Also, why was Simon CB2 after Lane went down? They moved Byron Maxwell inside so that some scrub could get raped on the outside?

Before I forget, going into the game, it was clear part of the Seahawks problem were injuries to the Legion of Boom. A year ago they were no doubt an elite defensive unit. This year, still pretty damn good but not quite the same.

Exactly. Brady raped their zone the same way (though Brady is a better QB) Rivers did. And they didn't adjust or couldn't adjust.

I will discount the injuries because I don't think it affected how they played the pass (maybe Kam). NE had some players playing gimpy as well (Edelmen and Stork (center)).

 

[Shlong]

The Pats played a better game and were the better team tonight outside a handful of Wilson jump balls. They were not evenly matched unless you were watching a different game. The final score always doesn't depict how the two teams played throughout the game.

And you can't be serious if you think this D is the best of all time. What you saw with the Pats were a team not scared to take it to anyone and the score reflected that. What happened to all the big hits that would scare this team?

The Pats were better for most of the first half but after that I would say the Seahawks looked like the better team (until the 4th quarter). Brady was getting smacked around early and he looked a bit shaken and threw the ball earlier than he wanted a few times (and one that should've been intentional grounding). I can be serious that I think this D is one of the best of all time (top-7 probably). Like I said, this is a different NFL where the rules are tailored for scoring and offense but they still lead the league for three consecutive years in scoring defense (their defense last year was probably even better).

 

[Childs]

Before I forget, going into the game, it was clear part of the Seahawks problem were injuries to the Legion of Boom. A year ago they were no doubt an elite defensive unit. This year, still pretty damn good but not quite the same.

Plus they lost Bryant, McDonald and Clemmons from the D line, and Thurmond from the secondary. And you could also include Browner, even though he was suspended all season. They used to be able to get pressure on anyone with just 4 rushing, but this year people have had all day to pass. This years defense was still probably the best in the league, but not nearly as good as last year.

Even with Simon being a liability, they were still one yard away from repeating. Not scoring in the fourth is what allowed NE to get back in it. Kearse's drop in the fourth and Lynch failing to run out his route stopped drives that should have at least burned two sets of downs worth of time.

Anyways, they had enough to win, they just didn't. Even though the outcome stings a little, I did find it funny that Wilson didn't say something like "God decided we shouldn't win today."

 

[emperus]

The Pats were better for most of the first half but after that I would say the Seahawks looked like the better team (until the 4th quarter). Brady was getting smacked around early and he looked a bit shaken and threw the ball earlier than he wanted a few times (and one that should've been intentional grounding). I can be serious that I think this D is one of the best of all time (top-7 probably). Like I said, this is a different NFL where the rules are tailored for scoring and offense but they still lead the league for three consecutive years in scoring defense (their defense last year was probably even better).

After the 1st half they had one drive they scored a field goal and then a 2nd drive they got an interception and scored a TD. Better team? Not by far.

Yeah, they lead the league because they play teams with 2nd and 3rd string QB's. Of their last 6 games of the season they played 4 teams with 2nd and 3rd string quarterbacks and the last 2 with Colin (one read) kaepernick.

 

[Shlong]

After the 1st half they had one drive they scored a field goal and then a 2nd drive they got an interception and scored a TD. Better team? Not by far.

Yeah, they lead the league because they play teams with 2nd and 3rd string QB's. Of their last 6 games of the season they played 4 teams with 2nd and 3rd string quarterbacks and the last 2 with Colin (one read) kaepernick.

How did the Pats D stack up against Manning and the Broncos last year (best offense in NFL history) and the Seahawks? Aaron Rodgers had a 55.8 QB Rating with a 5.2 YPA in the NFC Championship game.

 

[manly]

The Pats were better for most of the first half but after that I would say the Seahawks looked like the better team (until the 4th quarter). Brady was getting smacked around early and he looked a bit shaken and threw the ball earlier than he wanted a few times (and one that should've been intentional grounding). I can be serious that I think this D is one of the best of all time (top-7 probably). Like I said, this is a different NFL where the rules are tailored for scoring and offense but they still lead the league for three consecutive years in scoring defense (their defense last year was probably even better).

Top-7 I can probably agree with so by that definition, one of the All-Time greats. I'm just not ready to put this unit up against the 2000 Ravens or 85 Bears yet. If you win a SB with Trent Dilfer under center, you have to be top-3 almost by default.

 

[Shlong]

Top-7 I can probably agree with so by that definition, one of the All-Time greats. I'm just not ready to put this unit up against the 2000 Ravens or 85 Bears yet. If you win a SB with Trent Dilfer under center, you have to be top-3 almost by default.

The 2000 Ravens are great but they didn't really go up against high octane offenses with all-pro QB's (They gave up 36 points to the Mark Brunell Jaguars). The 1985 Bears were probably #1 with their only blemish giving up 38 points to Dan Marino.

 

[BoomerD]

:biggrin:

Dammit...good game, but it didn't end the way I hoped it would.

Maybe next year.

 

[Adrenaline]

I think recovery is much shorter now with amazing magic stem cells.

TJ surgery can take up to 18 months to recover from.

 

[Printer Bandit]

 

[BUTCH1]

Brady was throwing at a 2nd stringer all night because of injury replacement.
The Pats were one dumb call away from losing, and you crying into your shitty corona.
contract conspiracy with that call? Are you high? Do you actually watch football?

where was the outright dominance that you predicted?

Yea but to be fair that's life in the NFL, you always attack an opponents weakest point. I am a life-long Pat's fan, but as much as I wanted a win predicting "dominance" against a defense as good as Seattle's is utter garbage, I expected a close, hard-fought game and that's exactly how it turned out. TBO I wanted them to let BM score on the 1st play and give Brady some time to try and work it down into FG range. Coaches sometimes out think themselves in big moments, I remember BB going for a 4th and 14 rather than try a 48 yrd FG facing the Giants, a "WTF" moment there, Brady was spending most of the night on the ground and you think trying to convert 4/14 is a good plan?. Turns out the Pat's tose by 3 IIRC.

 

[BUTCH1]

Plus they lost Bryant, McDonald and Clemmons from the D line, and Thurmond from the secondary. And you could also include Browner, even though he was suspended all season. They used to be able to get pressure on anyone with just 4 rushing, but this year people have had all day to pass. This years defense was still probably the best in the league, but not nearly as good as last year.

Even with Simon being a liability, they were still one yard away from repeating. Not scoring in the fourth is what allowed NE to get back in it. Kearse's drop in the fourth and Lynch failing to run out his route stopped drives that should have at least burned two sets of downs worth of time.

Anyways, they had enough to win, they just didn't. Even though the outcome stings a little, I did find it funny that Wilson didn't say something like "God decided we shouldn't win today."

I wouldn't quite say that, the Pat's had no answer for Bennet all game long, he forced Brady into some quick throws and probably the 2 picks.

 

[MetalMat]

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Paul Revere was galloping through Seattle last night proclaiming The Patriots Won, The New England Patriots have won!

 

[vi edit]

Here's my conspiracy theory on "the call" that ended the game.

It's been well rumored that Seattle and Lynch have been at ends with each other. There's a rift there and I really don't think that Seattle management wants to lock up a pile of money into a guy who's a few months away from being 29 and has a punishing running style.

Now if they hand the ball off to him at that spot and he trots in potentially sealing up their victory he's a hero to the city. How can they *NOT* sign him in that situation. Fans will hate the front office for years.

So instead, they put the chance to win on Wilson's arm, piss off Lynch for not giving him the goal line carry and make him even more mad at the organization and deflect the hero aura that he would get from fans.

Just randomly musing...

 

[edro]

Here's my conspiracy theory on "the call" that ended the game.

A lot of people are talking about it right now on sports radio.
I think it's dumb.
He is a huge part of their success, regardless if he scores the winning touchdown.

 

[ControlD]

Here's my conspiracy theory on "the call" that ended the game.

Honestly, I had the exact same theory. I think Seattle was willing to let Lynch score the winning TD if they failed on the pass play, but Wilson is the guy they wanted to be the hero.

 

[emperus]

Here's my conspiracy theory on "the call" that ended the game.

It's been well rumored that Seattle and Lynch have been at ends with each other. There's a rift there and I really don't think that Seattle management wants to lock up a pile of money into a guy who's a few months away from being 29 and has a punishing running style.

Now if they hand the ball off to him at that spot and he trots in potentially sealing up their victory he's a hero to the city. How can they *NOT* sign him in that situation. Fans will hate the front office for years.

So instead, they put the chance to win on Wilson's arm, piss off Lynch for not giving him the goal line carry and make him even more mad at the organization and deflect the hero aura that he would get from fans.

Just randomly musing...

That was my theory when I saw the call. The call made absolutely no sense in the scheme of their two objectives Score a TD and run the clock out. A pass might helps you score quickly or stops the clock. The objective was to make Wilson the hero.