NFL Super Bowl 2017 Prediction

[easysurfer]

Huh? Clearly, the Patriots were abducted and replaced by alien look-alikes during halftime.

Don't y'all think it's time to let go of that Brady thing and move on?

I was referring to the fake news about his jersey being kept safe, but looks like in actually still missing.

That's a shame folks have such ill will, as his jersey should be a big part of football history, the biggest SB comeback and all. This is not too unlike in baseball history when during Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak, his bat got stolen (but eventually returned). Both a part of sports history, not my attempt to gin things up.

DiMaggio was...victimized during his record-breaking 56-game hitting streak, when his favorite bat vanished between games of a double-header.​

Dr. Rock Positano, DiMaggio’s longtime friend and foot doctor and director of the Joe DiMaggio Sports Foot and Ankle Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, told me, “Joe was very superstitious and was afraid it would end his streak.”​

http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/10/the-time-joe-dimaggios-baseball-bat-was.html

 

[Bestwifeever]

Re missing jersey: are they sure Roger Goodell can account for his whereabouts? He would be a suspect in any mystery novel. Just kidding, NFL police!

B, interesting that the outcome of the game lines up with the biggest chunk of poll-takers in this thread--Patriots by seven points or less.

 

[Chris7]

Best Superbowl ever!

It was a great Superbowl, but the fact that it was so lopsided for so long, caused many to lose interest. I kept watching and it was a truly, awe inspiring comeback, but not the best game ever.

Patriots deserve all the kudos for not mentally checking-out and they just kept believing they still had a chance.

Falcons are a young team, hopefully they will be back and this experience will help them win one in the future. They just couldn't maintain the effort they had put forth in the 1st half.

 

[Texas Proud]

That story was discredited quite a while ago, not found yet.

Well, I heard it after 8AM central.... so not THAT long ago...

 

[easysurfer]

It was a great Superbowl, but the fact that it was so lopsided for so long, caused many to lose interest. I kept watching and it was a truly, awe inspiring comeback, but not the best game ever.

Patriots deserve all the kudos for not mentally checking-out and they just kept believing they still had a chance.

Falcons are a young team, hopefully they will be back and this experience will help them win one in the future. They just couldn't maintain the effort they had put forth in the 1st half.

On the not checking out part, that was the big difference between an experienced team vs an inexperienced one, from the coaching staff down to the players. I'm sure the Falcons wish they had a second chance on some of the play calling and you really have to play 4 quarters of football and not 3.

 

[Midpack]

Don't y'all think it's time to let go of that Brady thing and move on?

Patriots haters are a special breed, but Brady isn't their primary target. But Pats fans couldn't care less about the haters, and the GOAT just plays even better as a result. So let the haters bring it, we love it!

 

[Corporateburnout]

Even the haters on ESPN this morning are conceding that Brady is the GOAT and he is not done yet....

Vegas already has the Pats as favorites to win next year's SB. Now that's respect

 

[aja8888]

Brady's jersey? I'll bet he has several of them.

 

[RobbieB]

I couldn't lose.

No love for either team, so it was pure entertainment. I rooted for Atlanta (underdog) and I rooted for New England (better seafood).

 

[CaptTom]

Huh? Clearly, the Patriots were abducted and replaced by alien look-alikes during halftime.

Funny, through 3-1/2 quarters I kept asking who were those guys in white and what did they do with the REAL Patriots?

 

[scrabbler1]

Can't say i like this format for OT in a Super Bowl.

I think this SB exposed the flawed OT rule it has, even the slightly less flawed version after the eliminated the one-drive-FG-win allowance a few years ago. They need to extend its OT rule to first-possession TDs so the other team has a chance to score one. Otherwise, the team which loses the coin toss faces two burdens to win - successful defense to stop the other team and successful offense in scoring. The team which wins the coin toss faces only one burden - having to succeed offensively - while its defense remains on the sidelines. Would New England's fans and players have sat quietly had Atlanta won the coin toss and Ryan marched down the field to a TD while the great Brady sat on the bench the whole time?

Imagine if baseball had sudden-death extra innings where the visiting team wins if they score in extra-innings and the home team never gets to hit? Or hockey's shootout to break a tie game where the first team to score a goal wins, even if the second team never gets a chance to score, too?

 

[marko]

Clearly, the Patriots were abducted and replaced by alien look-alikes during halftime.

Interesting stat on ESPN this morning. The Falcons had the lead for over 41 minutes in SB LI, the Patriots had the lead for 00:00 minutes - as the game ended with the winning OT TD.

Aww, the Pats were just playin' with 'em for the first 58 minutes then Bill said "Ok boys, time to get serious now!"

(Disclaimer: Nephew works for the Pats)

 

[easysurfer]

I just watched the series again on DVR where the Falcons didn't run the ball but instead got sacked then held to put them out of FG range. Upon further watching, I say can't really blame the Falcons for trying to get a first down by passing. They did run and got stopped of on 1st down and caused the Pats to use a time out. Had they run again, more time would have ticked off but I think the Pats would have got the ball anyhow with about a minute less and I say Pats and Brady probably would have scored anyway. The sack and holding, that was part of the flow, tug of war, of the game and hindsight is 20/20. One 1st down and the Falcons would have one the game right there. That's how they beat the Packers, by not playing chicken.

 

[Midpack]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. I have nothing against the Falcons, and I hope they come back even stronger next year. I remember how we felt after the Super Bowl losses to the Giants, takes a while.

To my in person friends who tell me the Patriots were lucky yesterday, I've been reminding them the Patriots were "lucky" in the last two Super Bowl wins (Seattle made a fatal error), and equally "unlucky" in the two with the Giants. It all evens out...

And I keep hearing/reading this as a reason the Falcons lost - but it's hogwash. Anyone else realize why? $20 to the first one to get it, see Forum Admin for payment.

Defense wore down. The Falcons’ defense came out strong, but ran out of gas while playing 95 plays, including the two two-point conversions.

 

[Sojourner]

I think this SB exposed the flawed OT rule it has, even the slightly less flawed version after the eliminated the one-drive-FG-win allowance a few years ago. They need to extend its OT rule to first-possession TDs so the other team has a chance to score one. Otherwise, the team which loses the coin toss faces two burdens to win - successful defense to stop the other team and successful offense in scoring. The team which wins the coin toss faces only one burden - having to succeed offensively - while its defense remains on the sidelines. Would New England's fans and players have sat quietly had Atlanta won the coin toss and Ryan marched down the field to a TD while the great Brady sat on the bench the whole time?

Imagine if baseball had sudden-death extra innings where the visiting team wins if they score in extra-innings and the home team never gets to hit? Or hockey's shootout to break a tie game where the first team to score a goal wins, even if the second team never gets a chance to score, too?

+1000

The NFL's OT format is seriously flawed and hugely favors the team that happens to win the coin flip, especially when that team has a strong offense. If Atlanta had won the toss, I think they'd have been MUCH more likely to win the game. Doesn't seem right that in game as consequential as the Superbowl, it more or less comes down to a random coin flip.

Makes no sense that the NFL doesn't adopt something similar to the NCAA football overtime system. Each team gets a chance to score and to defend, so that neither side is arbitrarily favored. I don't see any downside whatsoever to this, and it would eliminate those pesky (though rare) games that end in a tie.

 

[easysurfer]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda....

Sorry, I forgot. Just contradicted myself again. Falcons were already in FG range. Okay.. no more Monday morning quarterbacking from me. Congrats to the Pats.

 

[pb4uski]

... interesting that the outcome of the game lines up with the biggest chunk of poll-takers in this thread--Patriots by seven points or less.

Not that surprising given the collective wisdom of people on this forum... where is the "pat on the back" emoji when you need it?

 

[pb4uski]

+1000

The NFL's OT format is seriously flawed and hugely favors the team that happens to win the coin flip, especially when that team has a strong offense. If Atlanta had won the toss, I think they'd have been MUCH more likely to win the game. Doesn't seem right that in game as consequential as the Superbowl, it more or less comes down to a random coin flip.

Makes no sense that the NFL doesn't adopt something similar to the NCAA football overtime system. Each team gets a chance to score and to defend, so that neither side is arbitrarily favored. I don't see any downside whatsoever to this, and it would eliminate those pesky (though rare) games that end in a tie.

Totally agree... each team should get a shot at scoring and if a team having the last chance to score doesn't tie or win, then the other team is the winner... IOW, the team getting the final chance has to at least tie in order stay alive (Atlanta would have needed to score a touchdown to extend the game).

 

[easysurfer]

I kinda like the old fashioned winner take all, first team that wins. Yes, that does seem unfair during the playoffs that so much is determined by a coin flip. But I don't like the if team gets FG, play on. If TD, game ends thing.

Actually, I'd like in regular season play another quarter, in playoffs, keep playing til someone drops. Of course, I'm not the one running around being tired out .

 

[48Fire]

I am a big fan of the "probability of win" forecasts that are now pretty standard. I'm surprised that there isn't some better play calling based on potential outcomes. Atlanta committed some unforced errors that cost them.

Here is the key poor decision in my mind:
Second-and-11, Patriots' 23
Win expectancy shift: 1.4 percent to 4.9 percent (+3.5 percent)

Instead, inexplicably, the Falcons chose to pass the ball on second down, on a slow-developing play that ended with Ryan going down for a coverage sack at the hands of Flowers, who slipped between center Alex Mack and right guard Chris Chester. The sack is partly on Ryan, who needed to get the ball out and held onto it for more than four seconds before hitting the turf.

Woody Hayes used to say that when you pass three things can happen and two of them are bad. With Atlanta already in field goal range, they just needed to kills some time, and force timeouts. If they gained any yardage, they just increased their win probability. Instead, they brought a sack in to play.

 

[48Fire]

I think this SB exposed the flawed OT rule it has, even the slightly less flawed version after the eliminated the one-drive-FG-win allowance a few years ago. They need to extend its OT rule to first-possession TDs so the other team has a chance to score one. Otherwise, the team which loses the coin toss faces two burdens to win - successful defense to stop the other team and successful offense in scoring. The team which wins the coin toss faces only one burden - having to succeed offensively - while its defense remains on the sidelines. Would New England's fans and players have sat quietly had Atlanta won the coin toss and Ryan marched down the field to a TD while the great Brady sat on the bench the whole time?

Imagine if baseball had sudden-death extra innings where the visiting team wins if they score in extra-innings and the home team never gets to hit? Or hockey's shootout to break a tie game where the first team to score a goal wins, even if the second team never gets a chance to score, too?

That's a great point and comparison to baseball. Imagine if the Cubs-Indians 7th game had a coin flip after being tied at 9 innings.

I love the College OT scenario. It's tried and proven.

 

[Sojourner]

Imagine if the Cubs-Indians 7th game had a coin flip after being tied at 9 innings.

I love the College OT scenario. It's tried and proven.

Absolutely. The college football OT system is a thing of beauty and about the most fair protocol you could devise. Boggles the mind why the NFL sticks with such a flawed, arbitrary sudden death system.

I kinda like the old fashioned winner take all, first team that wins.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but surely you don't think a "first team that scores in OT wins immediately" system is actually fair? I mean, if we went purely on that logic, Atlanta would be the Super Bowl champions today since they scored the first points of the game. Why should the OT period suddenly change the fundamental flow of the game (i.e., each team gets to possess the ball and try to score in an alternating fashion)? It makes no sense and, IMHO, is clearly a flawed system. Every other major sport I'm aware of gives both teams basically equal chances to win in the OT period.

 

[easysurfer]

Absolutely. The college football OT system is a thing of beauty and about the most fair protocol you could devise. Boggles the mind why the NFL sticks with such a flawed, arbitrary sudden death system.



Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but surely you don't think a "first team that scores in OT wins immediately" system is actually fair? I mean, if we went purely on that logic, Atlanta would be the Super Bowl champions today since they scored the first points of the game. Why should the OT period suddenly change the fundamental flow of the game (i.e., each team gets to possess the ball and try to score in an alternating fashion)? It makes no sense and, IMHO, is clearly a flawed system. Every other major sport I'm aware of gives both teams basically equal chances to win in the OT period.

I think for one game that may not feel fair. But overall, the course of many overtime games in a season or several seasons, things should balance out close to 50-50 as to how many times a team wins vs loses a flip. Thus, looked at that way, is fair. Of course, broken down to one game with such implications seems unfair if you don't win the flip. Though, in the real sudden death games, though most, not every team that won the flip won the game.

 

[6miths]

Can't say i like this format for OT in a Super Bowl.

How often does one get a chance to quote one's self. I said it prior to the outcome and I still think it is a dumb format.

 

[Car-Guy]

I think at a minimum, both teams should get the ball at least one series of downs in OT or better yet, play a full quarter and then see then who's ahead. If it's still tied, repeat another full quarter, repeat as necessary. (Especially for the Superbowl)

It's really too bad that the flip of coin in OT gives one team so much of an advantage, but those are the current rules.