2015 NFL Superbowl XLIX

Areyouwell

Seahawks

matthew8 wrote: »

Undisputed GOAT is a bit of an oxymoron for me. How can you say for sure he was better than the likes of Otto Graham in the old days? And how do you compare him to greats in other positions like Jim Brown and Jerry Rice?

Otto Graham played in a era, where a handful of teams could own the league and get stacked with the best players. It also was a far less competitive era when compared to today. Comparing eras is always difficult, but what makes this one unique is. The salary cap and free agency was designed to prevent team dominance. And that's what makes Brady's achievements in the last 15 years all the more remarkable. He's done it with 4 different teams and 4 different rosters.

SantryRed

Seahawks

tgdaly wrote: »

People seriously need to lay off Carroll for the call. 109 times a quarterback threw the ball from the one yard line this year. Once did that result in an interception, Wilson last night. ALL YEAR. 0% of the time before last night. Less than 1% today. It was just a good play by Butler, not a bad call. That's football. If the Seahawks had scored everyone would be saying why didn't Belichick take a time out blah blah blah. The Patriots were the better team in the first half and in the fourth quarter. Brady was phenomenal. The best team won

It was a bad call. Your running back had just got you 5 yards the play before. He was a wrecking ball in the second half, and always seemed to get past the line of scrimmage. You give him the ball in that situation. So what if there'd been 0 INTs from the 1 yard line this season, why would you even put it to chance? To run a pass play, from shotgun, without even a play action off Lynch, was a very bad call.

helimachoptor

Crazy chaps

http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/other/two-irish-lads-snuck-in-to-watch-the-super-bowl-in-50k-seats-660661.html

Realt Dearg Sec

Seahawks

helimachoptor wrote: »

Crazy chaps

http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/other/two-irish-lads-snuck-in-to-watch-the-super-bowl-in-50k-seats-660661.html

If he intends going next year and sneaking in, he's kind of hobbled himself by explaining exactly how he did it along with a series of photos of himself. Still, pretty cool all the same.

Personally, I don't care if it's the second coming of Christ, charging 25,000 for a ticket means anyone who can sneak in deserves it, there is no event worth paying that kind of money or anything like it.

eagle eye

Seahawks

SantryRed wrote: »

It was a bad call. Your running back had just got you 5 yards the play before. He was a wrecking ball in the second half, and always seemed to get past the line of scrimmage. You give him the ball in that situation. So what if there'd been 0 INTs from the 1 yard line this season, why would you even put it to chance? To run a pass play, from shotgun, without even a play action off Lynch, was a very bad call.

Was it a bad call to go for it at the end of the 2nd quarter? If they hadn't got the td there then they would have been eight points down at that stage of the fourth quarter.

I think it was a smart move to go for it there because everybody was expecting the run. There is not one person that would be calling it a bad play call if the Seahawks had scored the td. It was a great play by Malcolm Butler not a bad play call.

Jolly Red Giant

Congrats to the Pats - a good game of football and a deserved win. Despite the tail-off at the end when the Seahawks jumped offside it was way better than the blow-out last year.

I thought that McD called a very good game on offence for the Pats and Carroll blew it (and he knows it too).

SantryRed

Seahawks

eagle eye wrote: »

Was it a bad call to go for it at the end of the 2nd quarter? If they hadn't got the td there then they would have been eight points down at that stage of the fourth quarter.

I think it was a smart move to go for it there because everybody was expecting the run. There is not one person that would be calling it a bad play call if the Seahawks had scored the td. It was a great play by Malcolm Butler not a bad play call.

It's a gutsy call. There's a big difference in the last play of the 2nd quarter and 4th quarter.

2nd quarter: You're deciding that you want to risk losing 3 points to gain 7. That's a risk that Carroll would have calculated as worth taking.

4th quarter: You need 7 points to win the game. You're on the one yard line. You have to score a TD.

I don't think we're gonna agree, and whilst I agree it was a great play by Butler to jump it and pick it off, I will always think that Carroll should not have put them in the situation where a pick could have happened. And to do it without a play action is 100% a bad play call! Why would you not at least make the Pats think you're gonna run it. Give the ball to Lynch, if he doesn't get it, take the TO and take the time you get to evaluate what you're gonna do. There would have been enough time for 2 plays to be gotten in after that.

Hazys

Seahawks

One thing that is overlooked in the Pete Carroll's pass over run decision was Bill Belichick's decision not to call a timeout.

Rumblings from Matt Patricia was that when they put out their run defense but with extra DBs as opposed to LBs, they were baiting the Seahawks to throw the ball.

As soon as the Marshawn Lynch was tackled on 1st down, i was screaming at Bill to call a timeout so if we get the ball back we'd have time to do something. They didn't call a timeout because they got the look they wanted. From the post game interviews, BB and Patricia were extremely confident in what was going to happen on the goal line it seemed delusional, but maybe it wasn't.

BB said not taking the timeout did 3 things; forced them to throw as there wouldn't be time to run 3 times, it didn't allow them to think about the play and they made a silly call and thirdly, it allowed them to keep to look they wanted.

It was a genius decision not to call the timeout although it still took a massive effort from Browner Butler to make the interception, but by not taking the timeout, it made the play possible.

JaMarcusHustle

Seahawks

I don't think it was a bad call initially, but Wilson or someone on the sideline really needed to call an audible in that situation when you see Brandon Browner is lined up opposite Kearse, and you're expecting Kearse to knock Browner back into Butler's path to allow the pick play. Kearse is giving up 3 inches in height and about 20lbs in weight on Browner, and I daresay quite a bit in arm length too. There's no way he's winning that battle and that gives Butler a clear shot at Lockette - and he's said after the game, as has Belichick, that they expected that play. How Carroll, Bevell and Wilson all failed to recognised this and change the play is beyond me.

I have no problem with calling a pick play - they are very low risk plays that have worked all year for Seattle and even if it's unsuccesful, you're likely to have stopped the clock which was vital for the Seahawks - but the reason what happened happened is due to great preparation, recognition and execution on the Patriots side of the ball, and poor recognition and execution the Seahawks part.

Neil3030

Someone posted a video on my Facebook feed where NFL Fox went through 5 reasons why throwing the ball wasn't such a bad idea:

1. Lynch was 1 from 5 all season from the 1 yard line. Not a guaranteed TD.
2. Prior to the Superbowl there had been 111 passes from the 1 yard line this season and not a single INT.
3. Clock control - a failed pass play allows them to run it on third down.
4. This season, teams had a 50% success rate for runs from the 1-yard-line, and a 59% success rate for passes.
5. Lockette was open - the pick came off the back of an outstanding defensive play.

Hazys

Seahawks

Not to mention the Pats were showing a run defense (with a wrinkle).

eagle eye

Seahawks

SantryRed wrote: »

Why would you not at least make the Pats think you're gonna run it. Give the ball to Lynch, if he doesn't get it, take the TO and take the time you get to evaluate what you're gonna do. There would have been enough time for 2 plays to be gotten in after that.

The Patriots were showing run D, the quick play is best. Play action gives them a chance to read and react.

tgdaly

Seahawks

SantryRed wrote: »

It was a bad call. Your running back had just got you 5 yards the play before. He was a wrecking ball in the second half, and always seemed to get past the line of scrimmage. You give him the ball in that situation. So what if there'd been 0 INTs from the 1 yard line this season, why would you even put it to chance? To run a pass play, from shotgun, without even a play action off Lynch, was a very bad call.

Your not putting it to chance. What Neil3030 posted above supports what I'm saying. Also nearly everyone (not me as my previous posts show) believes Wilson is an 'elite' quarterback. Are you telling me an elite quarterback shouldn't be able to complete a pass in that situation? Passing from the goal line is just as valid an option as running it. That's football you've 2 options. If it was the Patriots in the same situation, nobody would be saying Belichick made a bad call trusting Brady. Carroll trusted Wilson just like any good coach trust their players. if he didn't trust Wilson to make that play, then either he shouldn't be coach or Wilson shouldn't be quarterback. Nobody would blame Belichick cause they don't have a running back. Everyone blames Carroll cause they have Lynch. As Neill3030 pointed out Lynch wasn't all that successful from the goal line this year.

keithdelahunty

It was not a bad play call, TE was clearily open. Everyone focusing on the play call and not as they should the FACT that Butler just simply made an amazing play. Rerun it 10 times and I bet you 9/10 it's a TD.

Buford T. Justice XIX

keithdelahunty wrote: »

It was not a bad play call, TE was clearily open. Everyone focusing on the play call and not as they should the FACT that Butler just simply made an amazing play. Rerun it 10 times and I bet you 9/10 it's a TD.

Depends on how many of those plays Butler is in the defense really:P

It really was an astounding play by him.

radharc

Have to admit I've totally changed my mind on the play call from the initial viewing. A couple of key factors for me:

- A lot of the arguments people are making make more sense if it was a fourth down (e.g. you have the best back in the league, you have to trust him etc. They did trust him, they had just given him the ball on first down and were probably going to give him the ball on three out of the last four plays.
- 26 seconds on the clock and 1 timeout is just not enough for 3 run plays imo, even if they get the final play off it'll be extremely rushed. So the question becomes when is the best time to run the pass play.
- You have to ignore the chance of an interception if you're the OC. The chance of a fumble is as likely imo.

What really cost the Seahawks was poor execution of the play, Wilson shouldn't have thrown the ball and Kearse and Lockette needed to make better efforts. Plus the kid just made a hell of a play.

Also it's debatable but I think Carroll should have called timeout once Belichick didn't, the key thing is to maximise your chance of scoring the TD, time on the clock has to be the secondary concern imo.

Adamcp898

radharc wrote: »

Have to admit I've totally changed my mind on the play call from the initial viewing. A couple of key factors for me:

- A lot of the arguments people are making make more sense if it was a fourth down (e.g. you have the best back in the league, you have to trust him etc. They did trust him, they had just given him the ball on first down and were probably going to give him the ball on three out of the last four plays.
- 26 seconds on the clock and 1 timeout is just not enough for 3 run plays imo, even if they get the final play off it'll be extremely rushed. So the question becomes when is the best time to run the pass play.
- You have to ignore the chance of an interception if you're the OC. The chance of a fumble is as likely imo.

What really cost the Seahawks was poor execution of the play, Wilson shouldn't have thrown the ball and Kearse and Lockette needed to make better efforts. Plus the kid just made a hell of a play.

Also it's debatable but I think Carroll should have called timeout once Belichick didn't, the key thing is to maximise your chance of scoring the TD, time on the clock has to be the secondary concern imo.

This is something I've been wondering, and is partly brought on by the fact that when the Seahawks lined up with 3 out wide the Pats stuck to goal line, but if the ball had been handed off to Lynch would the D line just have parted ways à la the Giants super bowl?

My inkling says they wouldn't have this time but it'd really be rubbing salt into Seattle if someone were to come out and say so :P

JaMarcusHustle

Seahawks

Difference between letting the Giants score and not letting Seattle score is that the Giants only needed a field goal so it was really out of our own hands. Seattle needed a touchdown.

Adamcp898

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Difference between letting the Giants score and not letting Seattle score is that the Giants only needed a field goal so it was really out of our own hands. Seattle needed a touchdown.

True, hadn't remembered that.

radharc

No way he was going to let them score, he definitely would have taken a timeout if that was the plan.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Seahawks

if anyone obsessed with the final play like me, there's a great thread on reddit all about it:
http://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/2uitcc/gif_breakdown_malcolm_butlers_final_superbowl/

and playbook primetime last night on NFL Network was a great tactical breakdown as well

SameOleJay

I can't believe what I'm reading.

It was a terrible call. Absolutely abominable.

adrian522

Seahawks

I think its a poor call, all the over analysis hide one thing and that is Pete carroll essentially outsmarted himself.

Lynch had been running well all night, he had over 100 yards, he needed one more, just give him the ball and don't overthink it.

DylanAFC

Seahawks

IMO when Seattle traded Percy Harvin and let Golden Tate go they are basically sending a message that they are a running team.

Live by the run, die by the run.

kmart6

adrian522 wrote: »

I think its a poor call, all the over analysis hide one thing and that is Pete carroll essentially outsmarted himself.

Lynch had been running well all night, he had over 100 yards, he needed one more, just give him the ball and don't overthink it.

Well there's an argument for he had over thought it 4 times already this season!

Jolly Red Giant

Yes the Seahawks should have run the ball but in my opinion the big blunder was not the INT (that can happen anytime) - the big blunder was the defence jumping offside on the following play when they had every opportunity to down Brady in the backfield and force a safety. Brady had nowhere to go and it was obvious that he was trying to draw the defence offside - they couldn't keep their head and handed the SB to the Pats without forcing Brady to make a play. Carroll (and Quinn) has to carry the can for not making sure that the defence was ready for what Brady was going to try and do.

polaris68

Seahawks

Elite running back vs pretty average receiving corps.

You gotta give it to your elite running back.

radharc

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Yes the Seahawks should have run the ball but in my opinion the big blunder was not the INT (that can happen anytime) - the big blunder was the defence jumping offside on the following play when they had every opportunity to down Brady in the backfield and force a safety. Brady had nowhere to go and it was obvious that he was trying to draw the defence offside - they couldn't keep their head and handed the SB to the Pats without forcing Brady to make a play. Carroll (and Quinn) has to carry the can for not making sure that the defence was ready for what Brady was going to try and do.

Brady was always going to get forward progress in that spot imo

tripperman

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Yes the Seahawks should have run the ball but in my opinion the big blunder was not the INT (that can happen anytime) - the big blunder was the defence jumping offside on the following play when they had every opportunity to down Brady in the backfield and force a safety. Brady had nowhere to go and it was obvious that he was trying to draw the defence offside - they couldn't keep their head and handed the SB to the Pats without forcing Brady to make a play. Carroll (and Quinn) has to carry the can for not making sure that the defence was ready for what Brady was going to try and do.

thats what saying not one bad mistake but two, and the fact that in the first qt they didnt get a drive going was a factor to, it let the pats build confidence in what they were doing

spiderdan

Seahawks

Not many people talking about the Hightower tackle on Lynch during the 1st down play, incredible seeing as he was playing with an injured shoulder which requires surgery. Some different angles on it in this video. What a game, still can't make sense of it all, all I know is the Pats won

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-bowl/0ap3000000468053/In-Depth-Game-changing-interception

Syferus

Great Super Bowl. Possibly the GOAT ending to a Super Bowl. That is all.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Seahawks

yep, what a game, i just can't get it out of my head! spent the whole week so far reading, watching and digesting every bit of information on it. watched every episode of first take with Skip, NFL Total Access and Inside the NFL last night. just can't get enough!

Vandango

Seahawks

What a game and it's already being talked about as one of the greatest SB's ever. Two fantastic teams going toe to toe, what a difference from last year. Watching Brady defying the odds in the 4th quarter and overcoming the biggest deficit in SB history, against probably the greatest defense ever was just unbelievable. No wonder TV ratings went through the roof, the game just had everything.

Putin

Seahawks

It was the greatest Superbowl I have ever seen, a phenomenal game that delivered on all the hype.

Morrisseeee

An amazing game that had nearly everything, just a pity it didn't end with BeastMode running it in and getting an MVP award !

Great play by Butler and he should have been MVP, because without him there's no Lombardi trophy for the Pats. He actually had a great game.

Amazing how this one play redefines everything though !!!

One fact I found interesting about Brady, he's 2-24 on passes greater than 20 yards in the SB !! He was second to only Alex Smith in percentage of passes completed over 10 yards outside the hashes this year at 12%.
So..........why can't teams lock down that short passing game ?!

All this talk about Brady being the GOAT is presumably just Patriotism, it's not even close when you consider Montana's record of 11 SB TD's and 0 Int's and 127.8 passer rating.

Tom Brady is an elite QB, thrives under pressure, has great determination and he's on anyone's shortlist if you're in need of a QB but..............he's also one lucky son-of-a-bitch.

bruschi

Seahawks

Morrisseeee wrote: »

An amazing game that had nearly everything, just a pity it didn't end with BeastMode running it in and getting an MVP award !

Great play by Butler and he should have been MVP, because without him there's no Lombardi trophy for the Pats. He actually had a great game.

Amazing how this one play redefines everything though !!!

One fact I found interesting about Brady, he's 2-24 on passes greater than 20 yards in the SB !! He was second to only Alex Smith in percentage of passes completed over 10 yards outside the hashes this year at 12%.
So..........why can't teams lock down that short passing game ?!

All this talk about Brady being the GOAT is presumably just Patriotism, it's not even close when you consider Montana's record of 11 SB TD's and 0 Int's and 127.8 passer rating.

Tom Brady is an elite QB, thrives under pressure, has great determination and he's on anyone's shortlist if you're in need of a QB but..............he's also one lucky son-of-a-bitch.

and bar a miracle catch by Tyree, and an outstanding one by Manningham, he;d have 6 superbowls. nothing lucky about losing them after he had put his team in front.

and its far from Patriots bigging him up as in talks for GOAT. The fact that you even think its Patriots homers saying it is a bit odd to be honest. Its not even close? :rolleyes:

that stat of deep ball too, where are you getting that? He threw a 22 yard TD to Gronk, and I'm nearly certain he had another 20 plus completion to Edelman. So if you are right, he has had no throw of longer than 20 yards in 5 other superbowls? Even if that was true (which I highly doubt it is) why is that now a measure of a QB? IT's like saying Maradonna is not in consideration for best soccer player because he only kicked a pass of longer than 10 yards with his right foot 4 times in 2 world cup finals. Brady doesnt, and hasnt (bar Moss) had deep threats. So why would he throw it deep just to satisfy some meaningless stat? He plays to his and his teams strengths, and the defences weaknesses.

adrian522

Seahawks

To be honest the gameplan in the superbowl was perfect, The seahawks are not a team you want to go deep on anyway, they attacked the weaknesses and picked on good match-ups as well exploiting the backup corner that came into the game.

Even as a complete homer 49er fan I have to admit there is little to choose between Brady and Montana. Even if Brady remains suitably modest on the subject.

Brady on getting compared to Joe Montana, his childhood hero: “I don’t ever see myself on that level.”

— Lindsey Adler (@Lahlahlindsey) January 27, 2015

bruschi

Seahawks

adrian522 wrote: »

To be honest the gameplan in the superbowl was perfect, The seahawks are not a team you want to go deep on anyway, they attacked the weaknesses and picked on good match-ups as well exploiting the backup corner that came into the game.

Even as a complete homer 49er fan I have to admit there is little to choose between Brady and Montana. Even if Brady remains suitably modest on the subject.

exactly. its not as if the Patriots were going to start magically going long with no deep threat against the best deep threat defence. so its an utterly pointless statistic.

As I said in the Pats thread, I didnt see Montana live during his prime, so it would be remiss to even discuss a comparison or try claim Brady is definitively better. But there is no way you could say its not even close. It's absolutely close, and statistics alone more than show that. Splitting them is subjective, and there are many varying ways of trying to put one over the other, all valid, but none conclusive.

Morrisseeee

Seahawks

Morrisseeee wrote: »

One fact I found interesting about Brady, he's 2-24 on passes greater than 20 yards in the SB !! He was second to only Alex Smith in percentage of passes completed over 10 yards outside the hashes this year at 12%.
So..........why can't teams lock down that short passing game ?!

All this talk about Brady being the GOAT is presumably just Patriotism, it's not even close when you consider Montana's record of 11 SB TD's and 0 Int's and 127.8 passer rating.

Tom Brady is an elite QB, thrives under pressure, has great determination and he's on anyone's shortlist if you're in need of a QB but..............he's also one lucky son-of-a-bitch.

i dont agree for a few reasons

1. you dont get to 6 superbowls by being lucky he's been fortunate to be in a very good situation in new england but luck just does not get you 6 sb appearances, 4 rings and 4 sb mvps. additionally i believe he's only ever had one season wheres he's won less than 10 games (and that was 9) so effectively he's never had anything less than a fantastic record. i dont think you can luck your way to that. himself, wilfork and bb have been the only consistent presences over that time so you can't claim its the team around him ala wilson either

2.with regards the deep ball he's offences have been built around short/medium intelligent passes. for example when he went the last time he had gronk, welker and hernandez as his 3 big weapons they are wasted if your running deep routes, run a short 5-10 route with and of them and theres a decent chance they will make a few yac. additionally he's not had that many deep ball threats as qb (bar moss but he threw plenty of 20+ yard tds to him)

3. with regards montana v brady its still in debate but it makes a lot of sense to have brady as the goat for all montanas great play in superbowls brady has gotten his team to 2 more superbowls than montana got his team to. you can't dismiss what a guy does all year for what he does in one game, getting a team to 6 superbowls is insane.

also montana had no salary cap issues his teams where insane ignoring the rest of his teams he one he had the greatest reciever of all time (and another arguable goat) in rice. rice contributed massively to his last two superbowls collecting nearly 400 yards and 4 of those 11 tds. outside moss brady has never had a reciever that could come within viewing distance of jerry rice.

adrian522

Seahawks

Andrea Stale Hillbilly wrote: »

3. with regards montana v brady its still in debate but it makes a lot of sense to have brady as the goat for all montanas great play in superbowls brady has gotten his team to 2 more superbowls than montana got his team to. you can't dismiss what a guy does all year for what he does in one game, getting a team to 6 superbowls is insane.

also montana had no salary cap issues his teams where insane ignoring the rest of his teams he one he had the greatest reciever of all time (and another arguable goat) in rice. rice contributed massively to his last two superbowls collecting nearly 400 yards and 4 of those 11 tds. outside moss brady has never had a reciever that could come within viewing distance of jerry rice.

Well Montana didn't have salary cap issues, but every other team was in the same position as SF. Yet there aren't other QB's with anything like the same body of work. Montana's first 2 superbowls were not on world beating teams either.

I believe Montana would have been just a successful in the current era, when lets face it it's a lot easier to be a QB than it was in the 1980's.

Joe also had good success both in college and later in Kansas without the all star receiving corp.

None of which is to say that Joe was the GOAT or head and shoulders above Brady or Unitas or anyone else, just that I don't think you can dismiss what he's done simply because there was no salary cap.

adrian522

Seahawks

adrian522 wrote: »

Well Montana didn't have salary cap issues, but every other team was in the same position as SF. Yet there aren't other QB's with anything like the same body of work. Montana's first 2 superbowls were not on world beating teams either.

I believe Montana would have been just a successful in the current era, when lets face it it's a lot easier to be a QB than it was in the 1980's.

Joe also had good success both in college and later in Kansas without the all star receiving corp.

None of which is to say that Joe was the GOAT or head and shoulders above Brady or Unitas or anyone else, just that I don't think you can dismiss what he's done simply because there was no salary cap.

oh i dont mean to dimiss montana in the slightest brady has had points in his favour as well I'm more arguing the original posters premise that brady was luck and that the argument is not close.

NotYourYear20

Seahawks

Morrisseeee wrote: »

An amazing game that had nearly everything, just a pity it didn't end with BeastMode running it in and getting an MVP award !

Great play by Butler and he should have been MVP, because without him there's no Lombardi trophy for the Pats. He actually had a great game.

Amazing how this one play redefines everything though !!!

One fact I found interesting about Brady, he's 2-24 on passes greater than 20 yards in the SB !! He was second to only Alex Smith in percentage of passes completed over 10 yards outside the hashes this year at 12%.
So..........why can't teams lock down that short passing game ?!

All this talk about Brady being the GOAT is presumably just Patriotism, it's not even close when you consider Montana's record of 11 SB TD's and 0 Int's and 127.8 passer rating.

Tom Brady is an elite QB, thrives under pressure, has great determination and he's on anyone's shortlist if you're in need of a QB but..............he's also one lucky son-of-a-bitch.

Lucky? Christ, even the most ardent hater would even go down that road or come out with that nonsensicalness. I'm a Steelers fan and I hate him because of his dominance, but I have to admire his brilliance. Overcoming two 14 points leads against the Ravens, overcoming the biggest Superbowl deficit of all time, the guy is always doing the impossible. You'll also find a lot of analyst's and lot of sports media outside of NE have taken their collective hats off after Sunday's performance and acknowledged him as the GOAT. No team could pass against the Seahawks probably one of the greatest defense of all time, they way Brady did at will on Sunday.

Those two two fantastic 4th quarter drives to win the game. And you come out with some meaningless stat about deep passes. I mean seriously? You think that's all football is about? Here's the other way of looking at it. There are few, If any QBS that could take the snap, decide upon their read, make a lighting fast decision to pick a target and pass the ball, all within 2 - 2.5 seconds. Peyton Manning was crushed, humiliated and bamboozled by the same Seahawks defense last year. Brady wasn't and probably because he has just has too much fight & cluchtness in him to allow that to happen.

Ya it's a team game, but the Pats have won 4 Superbowls and their common denominator on every team has been Brady. He has won 4 super bowls with 4 different teams and different receiving corps that weren't stocked with All-Pros. The guy owns all the real important records. You know? The post season stuff and you think he's lucky? Come on man, cos that joke ain't even funny. When it comes to the GOAT, Montana and Brady are out on their own for me, but after Sunday, I'd probably put Brady just a step in front. Now I'd just wish he'd hang up his cleats and go away.

tgdaly

Seahawks

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Lucky? Christ, even the most ardent hater would even go down that road or come out with that nonsensicalness. I'm a Steelers fan and I hate him because of his dominance, but I have to admire his brilliance. Overcoming two 14 points leads against the Ravens, overcoming the biggest Superbowl deficit of all time, the guy is always doing the impossible. You'll also find a lot of analyst's and lot of sports media outside of NE have taken their collective hats off after Sunday's performance and acknowledged him as the GOAT. No team could pass against the Seahawks probably one of the greatest defense of all time, they way Brady did at will on Sunday.

Those two two fantastic 4th quarter drives to win the game. And you come out with some meaningless stat about deep passes. I mean seriously? You think that's all football is about? Here's the other way of looking at it. There are few, If any QBS that could take the snap, decide upon their read, make a lighting fast decision to pick a target and pass the ball, all within 2 - 2.5 seconds. Peyton Manning was crushed, humiliated and bamboozled by the same Seahawks defense last year. Brady wasn't and probably because he has just has too much fight & cluchtness in him to allow that to happen.

Ya it's a team game, but the Pats have won 4 Superbowls and their common denominator on every team has been Brady. He has won 4 super bowls with 4 different teams and different receiving corps that weren't stocked with All-Pros. The guy owns all the real important records. You know? The post season stuff and you think he's lucky? Come on man, cos that joke ain't even funny. When it comes to the GOAT, Montana and Brady are out on their own for me, but after Sunday, I'd probably put Brady just a step in front. Now I'd just wish he'd hang up his cleats and go away.

I wouldn't say Brady was lucky either. In fact to be fair he was unlucky against the Giants two times (this from a Giants fan). Two unbelievable catches from below average receivers, and just facing Eli in the playoffs where he always plays his best football, and some of the best defensive ends to ever play the game cost him from having 6 rings

Also isn't there a saying about the great players always creating their own luck? Butler isn't in a position to make that amazing play, and Carroll isn't put under pressure to make that call, if Brady doesn't deliver a clutch drive to make the score 28-24

raze_them_all_

Seahawks

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-am/0ap3000000468183/Carroll-wired-during-Super-Bowl-XLIX?campaign=Facebook_video_carroll



this amuses me

raze_them_all_

Seahawks

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-am/0ap3000000468183/Carroll-wired-during-Super-Bowl-XLIX?campaign=Facebook_video_carroll



this amuses me

that sherman gif is still the best

Morrisseeee

Looking at the 'play that redefines everything' again, and from different angles, I've come to the conclusion that's it's actually a decent play, it just needs execution. It's not a brilliant play because Wilson will be throwing into a tight window and directly at the defender and there's not much room for error.

It's just poorly executed by the offense, and brilliantly executed by Butler.

Wilson's throw is away from Lockette, Lockette is moving slowly and lazily and it's as if he doesn't expect to be tackled. From Butler's perspective, he anticipates the play, he sees Lockette moving so jumps the route, but Wilson is throwing directly at him, he launches himself at the ball and does brilliantly to make the tackle and hold onto the ball.

The Pats win and history is re-written.

adrian522

Seahawks

One question that really needs to be asked of the Seahawks is how they burned the play clock right down on that play. There were 61 seconds left when Lynch was tackled, just 26 seconds left when they snap the ball, leaving them in a situation where they are struggling to get all their plays off if they don't turn the ball over.

It was a bad play call, bad clock management and bad execution. Wilson was late with the throw and should have realised it wasn't on and just thrown the ball away.

In any case if you look at lockette on the play there is a good chance even if he makes the play that he is tackled short of the goal line.

Morrisseeee

I think they were waiting for the Pats to call a T/O, but it never happened. I was reading an article yesterday about the pro's and con's and consequences of calling or not calling a T/O wrt to both teams. It gave the probability of a win for both teams and I think it favored the Seahawks, but only marginally by maybe 0.3 or something.

Earlier I said Lockette was moving slowly but maybe it's because Wilson just didn't get the ball out sooner. Maybe the better play is if Lockette does a double move and darts back to the corner of the endzone, then at least Wilson is throwing away from the defender and if it's not caught it's also highly unlikely to be intercepted.

BKWDR

Seahawks

adrian522 wrote: »

In any case if you look at lockette on the play there is a good chance even if he makes the play that he is tackled short of the goal line.

Given how well Butler hits him, granted he got the pick, but if he hadn't i don't think they would have broken the goal line either.

Realt Dearg Sec

Seahawks

BKWDR wrote: »

Given how well Butler hits him, granted he got the pick, but if he hadn't i don't think they would have broken the goal line either.

He'd be better off not catching it(as long as it isn't intercepted and assuming he didn't get a touch down from the reception) because then the clock stops, you run on third, time out if you don't score, enough time for a fourth down run with no comeback from New England. Im guessing that was the logic they were applying. It's far more baffling that the patriots didn't call a time out. If Seattle had scored on that drive they weren't giving themselves enough time to go back down the field at all. This idea that that's just the genius of bb doesn't wash. The genius or stupidity of both coaches is being judged far too much on a set of circumstances that seem far out of their own control.