NFL Super Bowl 2017 Prediction

[6miths]

Yes I'm sure that someone from the Pats side got to that coin.

 

[Texas Proud]

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.

As an aside... soccer did have the golden goal for awhile... where they played and whoever scored the first goal they won... decided to get rid of that and have a couple of short periods and if still tied a shootout...


I agree that the college OT is the best way for football... I mean, if it really was the first team to score they would have kept the win if a team got a filed goal... but they did change that rule, so they figured that was not fair... but why? First team to score... period... that makes more sense then what they have now....

 

[scrabbler1]

As an aside... soccer did have the golden goal for awhile... where they played and whoever scored the first goal they won... decided to get rid of that and have a couple of short periods and if still tied a shootout...


I agree that the college OT is the best way for football... I mean, if it really was the first team to score they would have kept the win if a team got a filed goal... but they did change that rule, so they figured that was not fair... but why? First team to score... period... that makes more sense then what they have now....

The NFL changed the OT rule to lessen the positive (and IMHO unfair) advantage of winning the coin toss. Many NFL OT games have been decided by a team winning the coin toss, taking the kickoff, getting a few first downs and moving the ball to the other team's 30-yard line, and kicking a FG to win it. The other team's offense never takes the field and the winning team's offense doesn't have to do much, maybe advance the ball 40 or 45 yards and not have to score a TD. The adjusted OT rule was an improvement because it got rid of the sudden-death ending under those circumstances. But it remains flawed because it still unfairly burdens the team which loses the coin toss with having to play both good defense and good offense in order to win the game, while the team which wins the coin toss may never have its defense tested. What should a team receive a big advantage in OT because some guy can yell out "heads" or "tails" correctly, something which has nothing to do with a team's ability to play football?

 

[easysurfer]

Here's an idea....

How about making an OT something like 10 minutes. A coin toss to let the flip winner choose to kickoff or get the ball. After 5 minutes, a short commercial break, then kickoff to the other team. Who has the lead at end of the 10 minutes wins. If no winner during regular season, game is tied. If playoffs, they play on and repeat until someone wins.

This way each team has 5 minutes to score without the game ending on a cheap field goal. Of course, can't please everyone as some will think this is too long or isn't really like sudden death at all.

 

[pb4uski]

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.

Roger did not take it... but he's going to appoint Ted Wells to solve the mystery.

 

[Car-Guy]

Roger did not take it... but he's going to appoint Ted Wells to solve the mystery.

a.k.a. Jersey Gate - gives Brady, the Patriots and the NFL some "post season" publicity.

 

[HFWR]

If the NFL wants to do sudden death OT, they should do something akin to a jump ball, or a face-off. Just line up on the respective 20 yard lines, drop the ball at midfield, then scramble for possession...

Otherwise, an OT of six minutes or so, given the average time of possession per drive is 2-3 minutes, would give both teams time for one drive, theoretically...

 

[easysurfer]

If the NFL wants to do sudden death OT, they should do something akin to a jump ball, or a face-off. Just line up on the respective 20 yard lines, drop the ball at midfield, then scramble for possession...

Otherwise, an OT of six minutes or so, given the average time of possession per drive is 2-3 minutes, would give both teams time for one drive, theoretically...

There was such a jump ball thing with the defunct XLF. Not really a jump but more like ball on the ground and the opposing players scramble.

The XFL ... .

 

[euro]

I tend to root for the underdogs so I'm picking the Falcons. Tired of the Patriots anyway.....

So, Patriots won? Well, rats!

 

[garyt]

I think the announcement of who won shouldn't even happen til after the SB. I believe in baseball, the MVP isn't announced until a few weeks after the world series.

The pre-anouncement, IMO, adds a bit of distraction to the SB. The point about Carr, leads me to think again that a lot of the voting happened during the course of the season. The Falcons and Cowboys pretty much dominated their way to the post season.

I'm gonna tune all the SB coverage hype (about 7:30 am as I type) which I bet is starting about now and just watch the, hopefully, very exciting game.

The MVP is strictly for the regular season. I believe Carr only missed the last two games of the season, both of which Oakland lost, proving more he deserved mention. He deserves his spot near the top.

 

[garyt]

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.

My problem with the defense wore down theme is, what about the offense? They're out there for the same number of plays as the other teams defense. Those offensive linemen are working just as hard as the DL.

 

[garyt]

While not perfect, I don't think the NFL OT rule is terrible. The team that receives the ball is not going to get good starting field position,usually. You're likely starting from your own 25. That's a long drive for a TD. Forced to punt and the other team has great field position. Even if you get 3, the other team knows what they need and can play for the tie or win.

if you can't stop a team from driving 75 yards for a Td, you deserve to lose, imo. No whining . Want to win? Stop them.
The Pats scored the last ,what, 4 times they had the ball. No way Atlanta was winning that game no matter what the rules were.

 

[Midpack]

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.

My problem with the defense wore down theme is, what about the offense? They're out there for the same number of plays as the other teams defense. Those offensive linemen are working just as hard as the DL.

Exactly right, the admins owe you $20. The Pats offense was out there for just as many plays as the Falcons defense. Not just lineman either, running backs and receivers would be just as tired as defensive secondary. GOATs arm was probably tired after throwing 62 passes too (SB record), he got roughed up pretty good in the first half, and a 15 yard run - he's too old for that.

 

[Corporateburnout]

The Pats scored the last ,what, 4 times they had the ball. No way Atlanta was winning that game no matter what the rules were.

Actually the O/T winning drive was their fifth consecutive scoring drive. The second Superbowl where the Pats owned the fourth quarter and in this game the O/T period as well.

BTW I was at the victory parade today (Actually watched it from my son's office on the parade route by the Boston common). I was amazed at the size of the crowd in such nasty weather.

 

[pb4uski]

I heard that the crowd was larger than the crowd for the most recent Presidential inauguration.... but please don't tell him....

 

[scrabbler1]

While not perfect, I don't think the NFL OT rule is terrible. The team that receives the ball is not going to get good starting field position,usually. You're likely starting from your own 25. That's a long drive for a TD. Forced to punt and the other team has great field position. Even if you get 3, the other team knows what they need and can play for the tie or win.

if you can't stop a team from driving 75 yards for a Td, you deserve to lose, imo. No whining . Want to win? Stop them.
The Pats scored the last ,what, 4 times they had the ball. No way Atlanta was winning that game no matter what the rules were.

They why wasn't New England's defense ever tested in OT to see if they could stop Atlanta from scoring a TD? It was the coin toss and flawed, unfair NFL OT rule which kept New England's defense off the field and ended the game before it should have ended - with Atlanta trying to score a TD on a subsequent possession.

 

[Midpack]

They why wasn't New England's defense ever tested in OT to see if they could stop Atlanta from scoring a TD? It was the coin toss and flawed, unfair NFL OT rule which kept New England's defense off the field and ended the game before it should have ended - with Atlanta trying to score a TD on a subsequent possession.

I can see both sides of the OT debate, and nothing wrong with making a change before next season.

But as most of the talking heads have said over the past few days, the Falcons defense had a whole came to seal the deal and prevent OT altogether. Every team knows that after 60 minutes, it all hinges on a coin flip and possibly sudden death - IF a TD is scored. All the Falcons had to do was hold the Pats to a field goal or less on any of their last THREE drives (one in OT). Or just keep them from scoring 2 point conversions TWICE after the last two regular time TD's! I was actually sweating the 2 point conversions more than the TD's, I never thought they'd pull that off twice...

Go Pats!

 

[scrabbler1]

I can see both sides of the OT debate, and nothing wrong with making a change before next season.

But as most of the talking heads have said over the past few days, the Falcons defense had a whole came to seal the deal and prevent OT altogether. Every team knows that after 60 minutes, it all hinges on a coin flip and possibly sudden death - if a TD is scored. All the Falcons had to do was hold the Pats to a field goal or less on any of their last three drives (one in OT) - not just the last one. Or keep them from scoring 2 after the last two regular time TD's - twice.

But that's irrelevant when it comes to the built-in unfairness of the OT rules. Both teams had scored the same number of points through the first 4 quarters, the only requirement to have an OT and its coin toss which will greatly and unfairly help its winner by sparing its defense from having to take the field in order to win. To win in OT, Atlanta needed to succeed defensively by preventing New England from scoring, then score points with their offense, the most common way a team scores points. Atlanta would not be awarded a win simply by stopping New England from scoring. What teams did or did not do in the first 4 quarters doesn't matter once OT begins with its coin toss which will greatly increase the burden one team will face when trying to win the game.

 

[Corporateburnout]

The games are getting longer and the ratings are suffering. The NFL is looking for ways to shorten the games without reducing commercials and ads. Any changes to the OT rules will have to take this into consideration.

As for the game, a team that is incapable of holding a 25 points lead with a little over a quarter to go does not deserve to win.

Go Pats.

 

[Midpack]

But that's irrelevant when it comes to the built-in unfairness of the OT rules. Both teams had scored the same number of points through the first 4 quarters, the only requirement to have an OT and its coin toss which will greatly and unfairly help its winner by sparing its defense from having to take the field in order to win. To win in OT, Atlanta needed to succeed defensively by preventing New England from scoring, then score points with their offense, the most common way a team scores points. Atlanta would not be awarded a win simply by stopping New England from scoring. What teams did or did not do in the first 4 quarters doesn't matter once OT begins with its coin toss which will greatly increase the burden one team will face when trying to win the game.

You're repeating yourself (like that'll change anyone's POV). I won't bother. We disagree, no biggie.

 

[Car-Guy]

Hey the Pats won playing by the rules, like so many other contests in recent months. (e.g. football and NASCAR ) If folks feel strongly enough about it they should "voice" their opinions to the appropriate people that can change the rules, get over it and move on. Be careful what you ask for!

 

[Car-Guy]

You're repeating yourself (like that'll change anyone's POV). I won't bother. We disagree, no biggie.

That would have been a greatest Superbowl Budweiser commercial of all times if they would have come up with that near the end of the 3rd quarter. "Hold my Bud".

 

[6miths]

Yes, both teams were playing by the same rules out the outset.

Still, I was cheering for the Pats and was excited to see them win but that doesn't make me think that the overtime format isn't flawed for a Super Bowl. Frankly, I don't care how or even if they break a tie between the Browns and 49ers in the regular season but for the reasons outlined above it just doesn't sit right in the big game or even in the playoffs. Yes the Falcons gave up a 25 point lead but what does that have to do with anything. The score was tied at the end of four quarters, it doesn't matter how the result was achieved (although it was rather spectacular - agree on the two 2-point converts - come on!). And to suggest that someone is concerned about the Super Bowl being too long because they decided to play two 10 minute overtime halves (or the college format or whatever) seems a bit of a reach. I watch to see the football game and yes maybe the commercials but I get more of those with a different OT format. I don't watch for the pre-game (TV went on at 6:40 EST - and was still too early) or post-game (I rewatched the fourth quarter on DVR after).

Anyway, I'm sure they will look at it. If for no other reason that in this case it aided the Pats in winning. I smell a conspiracy!

 

[Car-Guy]

Anyway, I'm sure they will look at it. If for no other reason that in this case it aided the Pats in winning. I smell a conspiracy!

"Coin gate" ?

 

[Chuckanut]

One bright note for Falcon Fans: Superbowl memoriabilia for the Falcons is on sale. I read where $30 hats are now less than $10. I imagine a lot of Falcon Superbowl stuff is also cheaper. Time for the true Falcon Fans to stock up!

OTOH, if you are a Pats fan, you get to pay big $$'s.