Super Bowl LIII - Rams v Patriots

eagle eye

troyzer wrote:

I assume you're a Pats fan. It wasn't a good spectacle for a neutral. Fair ****s to the Pats for putting on a masterclass of how to suffocate a team. But the Rams were nearly as suffocating.
Defensive slugfests can and often are interesting but this one wasn't.

It was high level stuff. Patriots were lining up like it was man coverage and playing zone. They were attacking up the middle because Goff is poor once he gets outside the pocket.
On the other side, Wade Phillips stopped the run early and shut down the middle of the field for large parts of the game. If Gronk was blocking Brady had only one receiver to go to and that was Edelman. He was forced to hold onto the ball for a lot longer than he wanted to many times because nobody was open.

PhuckHugh

PhuckHugh2 wrote: »

You must be mixing me up with my alter ego. PhuchHugh.
I am PhuckHugh2

You're my alter ego ...

cosatron

i think McVay called a very poor game to be honest and Goff let the occasion get to him a bit. Cooks was open in the endzone for at least 3 sec and got the ball to him way to late. I think overall the championships game were so good that we were expecting fireworks and everyone is a tad disappointed with the defensive game as there is so much potential on the offensive side of the ball on both teams. Edelman and hightower were outstanding.

Utopia Parkway

PhuckHugh2 wrote: »

Brady was not good. Fair play to him he got the job done and he was certainly miles ahead of Goff. But that performance was probably his worst superbowl winning performance.
Also the INT was not a freak it was a bad pass. It should have been caught by the Robey-Coleman first off. Rams D completely suckered him into that throw with the coverage.

There probably should have been 1 or 2 more interceptions for the Rams. He also missed a load of throws. He missed a simple screen pass to James White at one stage. Patriots certainly deserving of the win but i wouldnt be putting much of it on Brady. He did enough is about all id say.

Far from his best game for sure but when the Pats needed to score half way through the 4th quarter he as usual delivered. 4 throws in a row down the field and the 2 throws to Gronk in particular were beautiful touch throws.

Utopia Parkway

Foxtrol wrote: »

Fair play to the Patriots. You take a Super Bowl any way you can get one (or six) but that was an awful spectacle for viewers, even going down to the superfluous stuff like the half time show and most of the ads.

Solid defense from both sides but at the same time not really dominant either (in terms of sacks or turnovers) and both offenses made a bunch of mistakes. In such a tight game Cooks had two chances for TDs that top WRs should be coming down with which was pretty much the difference.

Gurley has come out again post game saying that nothing was wrong with his leg but there has to be something more there. Rams haven't really looked right since he went down and they lost Kupp. Interesting to see how McVay bounces back over the next few years seeing as there's a decent chance the level of talent on his team will decline.

The Rams will still be there or thereabouts I reckon but this year was a great chance for them. They could afford to bring in a load of free agents because Goff is still on his rookie deal but some of those players will want to get big paydays now so the Rams are unlikely to be able to hold onto everyone. I know Brandin Cooks for example. His cap number takes a big jump in 2019 and 2020. Paying him alone means they will probably have to let another good player leave.

Itssoeasy

Maroon 5 should never be allowed do a super bowl half time show ever again. Jesus Christ why ?

Foxtrol

eagle eye wrote: »

The new people who watch red zone all year hated that game. The person who regularly watches and enjoys full games loved it for the awesome defensive battle that it was.

I very much doubt too many fans outside of those supporting the Patriots ‘loved it’. Defenses were very solid (decent pressure and good coverage) but both offenses were risk averse and did little in terms of innovation. Patriots pretty much played how they have during the playoffs but came up against a defense that wasn’t either inept or regularly shoot themselves in the foot, like their other opponents did. Though extremely effective and impressive, it is not a type of football that is attractive to watch for most neutrals.

Those saying Brady was poor, if he was so bad then how did Edelman get MVP?

Brady had one interception, one fumble, should have been picked off at least two more times, missed a lot of easy throws, and rarely attempted anything outside of when Edelman was wide open. Regarding MVP, I can see why Edelman got it, but the Patriots defense should feel rightly aggrieved after holding the Rams to 3 points. I’m sure their ring will make up for it.

Truth of the matter is that Brady had Edelman, Gronk and a bunch of at best average receivers.

So the ‘GOAT QB’ only had the ‘GOAT HC’, ‘GOAT TE’, ‘HOF level WR’, first round pick RB, OC being paid HC money to be heir apparent to the dynasty, and an OL playing at an extremely high level under the ‘GOAT OL Coach’. I'll get my violin out for Brady.

OldMrBrennan83

I thought Maroon 5 did ok, the only problem is that their songs are **** so they hadn't much to work with.

The Good Ole Boys

patriot played good. derserve win.

Hazys

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Maroon 5 should never be allowed do a super bowl half time show ever again. Jesus Christ why ?

And Maroon 5 mixing with Rappers was a weird misfit of genres too.

eagle eye

Maroon 5 gave their fee to charity so at least there's that.

eagle eye

Foxtrol wrote: »

I very much doubt too many fans outside of those supporting the Patriots ‘loved it’. Defenses were very solid (decent pressure and good coverage) but both offenses were risk averse and did little in terms of innovation. Patriots pretty much played how they have during the playoffs but came up against a defense that wasn’t either inept or regularly shoot themselves in the foot, like their other opponents did. Though extremely effective and impressive, it is not a type of football that is attractive to watch for most neutrals.

Brady had one interception, one fumble, should have been picked off at least two more times, missed a lot of easy throws, and rarely attempted anything outside of when Edelman was wide open. Regarding MVP, I can see why Edelman got it, but the Patriots defense should feel rightly aggrieved after holding the Rams to 3 points. I’m sure their ring will make up for it.

So the ‘GOAT QB’ only had the ‘GOAT HC’, ‘GOAT TE’, ‘HOF level WR’, first round pick RB, OC being paid HC money to be heir apparent to the dynasty, and an OL playing at an extremely high level under the ‘GOAT OL Coach’. I'll get my violin out for Brady.

1. You are probably a red zoner. I'm watching football for 35 years and I'll turn on a defensive battle over what looks like a scorefest between average sides any day. Obviously I'll watch every Patriots game but in multiple game slots if my team aren't playing I find something like a Steelers/Ravens or Bears/Vikings much more appealing to a Bucs/Falcons type game.



2. Yeah you see why Edelman got it, it's because Brady delivered the ball to him so many times. The defense by the Rams was exceptional for most of the games, they kept the middle of the field so tight that Brady has nowhere to go unless Edelman got open or Gronk was relieved of his blocking duties.

It was a defensive masterclass for most of the game by both sides until the Rams D got tired. Brady didn't make the amount of mistakes most would in the situation he was in.


3. I never ask you to feel sorry for him. He has another ring, his sixth and I'm sure he is very happy with that and not looking for anybody to feel sorry for him.

PhuckHugh2

Gilmore should have got the MVP imo. Edelman was great clearly but Gilmore should have got it.

eagle eye

PhuckHugh2 wrote: »

Gilmore should have got the MVP imo. Edelman was great clearly but Gilmore should have got it.

I think Edelman got it because he was the clear MVP on the offensive side of the game.



You could have given it to any of Gilmore, Hightower, Flowers or Devin McCourty. Lawrence Guy and Kyle Van Noy were also contenders.

Damien360

The Good Ole Boys wrote: »

patriot played good. derserve win.

The defense of both teams played well. Neither offence got going and Brady acknowledged the fact that defence did all the work soon after full time. I know we can point to Edelman and only for him, it would be a stagnant mess.

Goff was very poor as he seemed to want to go to his number one in every play and never looked for other open players. There was a handful (5 from memory) of key plays in which his number one was double covered and someone was open for short yards and first down but he didn't even look. Poor offense/great defence is debatable. I would love to know why the Pats managed to read the Rams plays so easily. What was the giveaway.

So many games this season were high scoring and even in the playoffs, the scoring was good and the defenses were still decent. It made for great games.

I can't say last night's game was great as it feels like celebrating a 0-0 game. One TD in an entire game is boring. Tony Romo held my interest throughout and he deserves a medal for injecting some sort of excitement. His vision is amazing.

Half time show is always forgetable but Maroon 5 lead singer hasn't a note in his head and doesn't have a voice for stadium singing. Poor choice by NFL.

Washout

McVay looked like a rabbit caught in headlights on the touchline. very young and maybe occasion got to him no?

kmart6

Washout wrote: »

McVay looked like a rabbit caught in headlights on the touchline. very young and maybe occasion got to him no?

Pretty sure the blank facial expression they kept showing has been the way he looked throughout every game this season.

Foxtrol

eagle eye wrote: »

1. You are probably a red zoner. I'm watching football for 35 years and I'll turn on a defensive battle over what looks like a scorefest between average sides any day. Obviously I'll watch every Patriots game but in multiple game slots if my team aren't playing I find something like a Steelers/Ravens or Bears/Vikings much more appealing to a Bucs/Falcons type game.

I see we’re back to insults and mickey measuring.

3. I never ask you to feel sorry for him. He has another ring, his sixth and I'm sure he is very happy with that and not looking for anybody to feel sorry for him.

Then what point were you trying to make by saying he only had Edelman, Gronk, and a ‘bunch of at best average receivers’?

At the time I posted I didn’t realize Brady also had alongside him a FB who is in another hemisphere than any others in the league so I should have included him too. I tend to get confused when we’re supposed to be playing down Brady’s supporting cast and when they’re all amazing and should never be questioned.

Washout

kmart6 wrote: »

Pretty sure the blank facial expression they kept showing has been the way he looked throughout every game this season.

fair enough....i actually havent caught much of the rams this season at all.

el Fenomeno

Southdubin6 wrote: »

Rams surely. Patriots incompetent RBs to help

Southdubin6 wrote: »

We will see in a couple of hours. If wrong I’ll hold me hands up.

Southdubin6 wrote: »

I’ve been at 5 games this year, I’ve been to multiples over the years. I believe SM will struggle and will be nullified by the rams tonight. If wrong I will hold my hands up but don’t think I will be.

eagle eye

Foxtrol wrote: »

I see we’re back to insults and mickey measuring.



Then what point were you trying to make by saying he only had Edelman, Gronk, and a ‘bunch of at best average receivers’?

At the time I posted I didn’t realize Brady also had alongside him a FB who is in another hemisphere than any others in the league so I should have included him too. I tend to get confused when we’re supposed to be playing down Brady’s supporting cast and when they’re all amazing and should never be questioned.

I'm not insulting, I'm guessing you are a red zoner. I'm not mickey measuring either just conversing.



I spoke about Brady's receivers because if Brady had Cooks or Woods it'd be a different game. I'm saying one or other of them not both.

I'm just pointing out that he had very few receiving options worth a damn and still got it done. They were up against a great defense last night and the running backs for most of the game spent their time pass blocking.



Anyways I'm guessing you are a red zone junkie and that is why you don't like defensive battles and probably don't really understand much about the defensive side of the game.

OldMrBrennan83

I'm better than you because I like the defense. I'm ever so refined and thoughtful.

It's an oldie but a goodie.

el Fenomeno

Anyone care to speculate what point Suh is trying to get to here?

Re: Edelman

"In my opinion, just thinking back, we eliminated him, even though he got yardages. We just have to not allow points to get on the board and give our offense more opportunities to score."

eagle eye

el Fenomeno wrote: »

Anyone care to speculate what point Suh is trying to get to here?

Re: Edelman

He is digging at his own offense. He is saying the defense did a good enough job to win the game.

el Fenomeno

eagle eye wrote: »

He is digging at his own offense. He is saying the defense did a good enough job to win the game.

Saying they "eliminated" someone who had 10 catches, 141 yards and won the MVP is a pretty funny way of going about that. Not that I'd have Suh anywhere near the top of my list of NFL Players that talk sense regularly...

The second line of what he said is absolutely fine. That first line though - yikes...

eagle eye

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I'm better than you because I like the defense. I'm ever so refined and thoughtful.

It's an oldie but a goodie.

I hope you are not putting that down to me. I call them red zoners, it's a new brigade of NFL fan. They are junkies for touchdowns.



I'm just saying that I prefer to watch full games and enjoy both sides of the ball. I get as much enjoyment out of watching a great defense in action as I do a great offense.

eagle eye

el Fenomeno wrote: »

Saying they "eliminated" someone who had 10 catches, 141 yards and won the MVP is a pretty funny way of going about that. Not that I'd have Suh anywhere near the top of my list of NFL Players that talk sense regularly...

The second line of what he said is absolutely fine. That first line though - yikes...

Yeah, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you there.

OldMrBrennan83

eagle eye wrote: »

I hope you are not putting that down to me. I call them red zoners, it's a new brigade of NFL fan. They are junkies for touchdowns.



I'm just saying that I prefer to watch full games and enjoy both sides of the ball. I get as much enjoyment out of watching a great defense in action as I do a great offense.

None of that means that someone who prefers offense is a 'redzoner'. It's pretty insulting really.

eagle eye

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

None of that means that someone who prefers offense is a 'redzoner'. It's pretty insulting really.

It's insulting to be called a redzoner? I don't see why it would, it's just a name I made up myself for people who only ever talk about tds and offensive players.

The game has changed over the last 15 or so years and become a more offensive minded game. It's just that last night was a magnificent display of defense and I enjoyed it a lot. It's nice to get teams who are able to do that in this day and age with all the pro-offense stuff that has come in including penalties.

If you didn't like it because it was low scoring then imo you don't really understand the whole game. In my experience over the last couple of years people who don't like a low scoring game are the same ones who watch redzone all the time.

Just to add there can be low scoring games which are awful too. A game which is full of mistakes by players. That wasn't the case last night, we knew they were two great offenses but defense was better last night.

rebelyell99

I dont mind these defensive games i actually quite enjoy them .I thought the pats D was immense but it has to be seen as an awful kick in the teeth for the rams to score only 3 points a team that has averaged over 30 a game .You have to hand it to New England there the masters at grinding it out and winning at all costs but the rams kinda flopped on the big stage , there offense especially. It will be intresting to see how Goff bounces back from this im not convinced he has the toughness to lead them to a super bowl tbh .