Cowboys vs Packers game was the only game with any entertainment value in entire playoffs so far. Pretty brutal football all around the league.
Just because the margin of victory is large, doesn't mean a game is bad. The NE/Pittsburgh game was exciting to watch. Pittsburgh has a decent defence, and it was entertaining to watch the Patriots carve it up. They had a flea flicker, long passes, and runs up the middle. When Pittsburgh had the ball the Patriots played great defence. They intercepted Roethlisberger, forced him into things he didn't want, and limited the receivers. That was also entertaining.
If you need it to be a close game, then the 6-6 Seahawks/Cardinals tie game must have been riveting.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
I should probably stop posting at this point
The Following User Says Thank You to squiggs96 For This Useful Post:
A little dramatic but they've posted a boat load of highlights from the season. Obviously Julio is ridiculous but check out the Taylor Gabriel and Tevin Coleman highlights to see why this offence is so deadly. Many of these big plays came immediately after the opposing team scored to make the game kinda close. Absolutely demoralizing.
Still can't believe that Falcons and Super Bowl is a thing. Can't wait for next Sunday!!!
Alex Mack really solidified the Falcons offensive line, and Tevin Coleman, and Devonta Freeman may have been the best backfield duo in the league. Patrick DiMarco is also a beast at full back. I remember him from when he played for the Chiefs under the disaster that was Romeo Crennel as head coach, dude threw some crazy blocks that allowed Jamaal Charles to break off some big runs. When the Falcons had Tony Gonzalez and were a playoff team they didn't have the same caliber of playmakers in the run game that they do now. So I think that makes this version of their offence much more multi-faceted.
The fact that they won and still put up points in games where they had no Julio Jones would indicate to me that they may still be able to move the ball and score points even if the Patriots can do what they do and remove the best piece from the equation. The one time all year where the Patriots defence had a bad game was against the Seahawks when they presented a multi faced attack that doesn't have one stand out playmaker that you need to stop. If Atlanta can bring some of that, they might put up enough points to make it a good game.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
New England's defense, let's face it, it's overrated. For fun, here's the slate of QBs they faced:
Tyrod Taylor (x2)
Fitzparick (x2)
Brock (x2)
Tannehill
Matt Moore
Carson Palmer
Cody Kessler (or Josh McCown or RGIII...does it matter? They all are not good)
Dalton
Landry Jones
Russell Wilson
Kaepernick (might have Gabbert but again, who cares?)
Goff
Flacco
Siemian
Roethlesberger
Lots, and lots of crap on that list. No doubt one of the easiest slates Belichick has had.
Now, let's see who Atlanta played
Brees (x2)
Newton (x2)
Winston (x2)
Rodgers (X2)
Russell Wilson (x2)
Carr
Siemian
Rivers
Wentz
Carson Palmer
Alex Smith
Goff
Kaepernick
Looks like they played 3 of the top 5-6 QBs in the league (including twice for Brees and Rodgers), and very little in terms of crap QBs. So yeah to me Atlanta's defense figures to be underrated here, and the Pats overrated. Matt Ryan is easily the best QB New England will face this year. Can't say the same for the Falcons and Brady.
Including the playoffs, Atlanta was 4-4 against top 19 (scoring) defences, and 9-1 against defences ranked 20-32. New England was 11-2 against the top 19 (scoring) defences, and 5-0 against defences ranked 20-32. New England's defence is ranked #1, while Atlanta's is #27. The only scoring defences worse than Atlanta are the Jets, Chargers, Browns, Saints, and 49ers.
I'm sure your point is that Atlanta faced better offences, but look at the defences they played. Atlanta played Green Bay and New Orleans twice. Those are the worst two passing defences in the league. The best passing defences were Denver (1), Houston (2), and Arizona (4). New England went 4-0 against them. Atlanta's defence is 28th against the pass and 17th against the run, based on yards.
Brady is the best QB the Falcons have played all year. There is a reason he's still there, and Brees and Rodgers are at home.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
I should probably stop posting at this point
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to squiggs96 For This Useful Post:
Just because the margin of victory is large, doesn't mean a game is bad. The NE/Pittsburgh game was exciting to watch. Pittsburgh has a decent defence, and it was entertaining to watch the Patriots carve it up. They had a flea flicker, long passes, and runs up the middle. When Pittsburgh had the ball the Patriots played great defence. They intercepted Roethlisberger, forced him into things he didn't want, and limited the receivers. That was also entertaining.
If you need it to be a close game, then the 6-6 Seahawks/Cardinals tie game must have been riveting.
Nah, there isn't anyone besides Pats fans who thought the game didn't suck. Curiously, only Falcons fans thought the NFC title didn't suck either. It's cool that as a Pats fan you thought it was good, but if the Pats lose to Atlanta 59-0, you'll think it's the worst game in NFL history, even though everyone else will likely call it the best. It was a standard Pats game, if you've never seen them before you might be excited. If you have, you've seen this a lot, so what's exciting about it? The winner?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The only scoring defences worse than Atlanta are the Jets, Chargers, Browns, Saints, and 49ers.
Atlanta's defence is 28th against the pass and 17th against the run, based on yards.
The stats don't tell the whole story with the Falcons D. Early in the season they were terrible and the offence had to put up a mountain of points to win games. They were inexperienced: 7 out of the 11 players in their starting base nickel set are rookies or second year players including the guy in the middle calling the defensive plays, Deion Jones. In the first half of the season they allowed 28.9 points per game. In the second half there was a huge improvement at 21.9 points per game. And then everyone saw what they did against Seattle and GB where the D actually contributed to winning with pressure and take aways.
Also remember that in many games the Falcons offence put up huge points in the first half and the D went into prevent mode which gave up a ton of yards and points in garbage time.
They are still inexperienced and prone to mistakes but they also play extremely fast and physical and are just now putting it all together. Obviously they'll be in tough against Brady but I don't think he'll pick them apart with ease like many people are saying.
I wasnt sure why CTV keeps running the superbowl ads to watch the game on ctv, and they are giving away prizes for it
then it made sense, this is the first year they can't simsub FOX
so if you watch the game on a Fox channel you get the US ads, whereas if you watch it on CTV you will get 20 ads for the big bang theory, 30 for tim hortons, then some more big bang theory
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
We are 100% getting the option to watch Fox with no simsub. And while I agree with Bell that the ad revenue they gain helps the Canadian TV industry, I've missed so many plays over the last number of years and had to deal with so many ####ty repeat commercials that I can't help but think "#### them". Not to mention Bell is a giant evil telecom and they screw people over every chance they get.
Quote:
The numbers are also likely to confirm an exodus of at least half of the peak audience of 9.2 million viewers who watched last year’s game on Canadian rights holder Bell Media’s CTV and French-language affiliate RDS.
The Canadian viewers are expected to bolt to the U.S. broadcast offered by rights holder Fox, at least in part to watch flashy U.S. Super Bowl commercials, which for the first time in more than 44 years will all air on Canadian screens.
The anticipated audience split follows a 2015 regulatory ruling in Canada that bans, as of this year’s game, a practice called simultaneous substitution. “SimSub” allows broadcasters who air American programming (such as CTV or Global) to request distributors (such as Bell or Rogers) to switch over to a Canadian signal — and Canadian ads — during commercial breaks.
I'm not sure about the 44 years part, that is false I think. I recall watching the US ads during the superbowl previously. Although that may have something to do with simsub rules. Something about not being allowed to simsub if they don't have a local station. This also was true when HD first came out.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Nah, there isn't anyone besides Pats fans who thought the game didn't suck. Curiously, only Falcons fans thought the NFC title didn't suck either. It's cool that as a Pats fan you thought it was good, but if the Pats lose to Atlanta 59-0, you'll think it's the worst game in NFL history, even though everyone else will likely call it the best. It was a standard Pats game, if you've never seen them before you might be excited. If you have, you've seen this a lot, so what's exciting about it? The winner?
100% agree.
The Pats are one of the least entertaining teams to watch in the NFL, strictly from an entertainment standpoint. Brady is grouped with the likes of Trevor Siemian and Brock Osweiler for QB air yards.
Which is fine. It doesn't make them less good. But entertaining? Nope
Depends whether you like winning or losing for entertainment value. The Pats are still a pass heavy team with a very accurate QB that I can see would make fans of opposing teams hate him...after all they just keep beating your team. IF Brady was more like Siemian or Osweiler and tossing up pick 6s that might make it more exciting for fans of other teams.
Right, but in every game there is a winner, so the entertainment value of all games is the same? If you are a Pats fan I am certain you are entertained by them winning.
But from purely an unpartisan fan perspective, do they play entertaining football?
I think the majority would answer emphatically no.
I guess it is how you determine the entertainment quotient? I do find the Pats entertaining.
Gronk is a monster and adding Bennett was a great decision, Blount is a monster attacking the line from the backfield and who doesnt like the quickness of Edelman, Amendola or Hogan? A defence that plays by the book, bends but rarely breaks without any real star quality players....just amazing to watch and yes, exciting.
The Pats also have the best management team in the league led by BB who simply has no peer at this time. The Pats went 3-1 with a 2nd and 3rd string QB this fall...thats pretty damned exciting...everyone expected them to bomb.
The Superbowl vs the Seahawks was exciting...a last second pick?
I think if the Pats were compared to Game of Thrones royalty they would be the Lannisters!
I wasnt sure why CTV keeps running the superbowl ads to watch the game on ctv, and they are giving away prizes for it
then it made sense, this is the first year they can't simsub FOX
so if you watch the game on a Fox channel you get the US ads, whereas if you watch it on CTV you will get 20 ads for the big bang theory, 30 for tim hortons, then some more big bang theory
CTV's Super Bowl Watch the brutal Canadian feed to win contest:
