- Jun 17, 2010
- 5,139
- 237
- 17,880
Well, the refs screwed the Saints, but the Saints screwed themselves too. So I don't feel too bad as they failed to execute when they had other opportunities.
Boring SB from an offensive scoring standpoint, but the beauty of this game was the battle of the defensive minds, and then what one team did to overcome being stymied by the opponents defense. Both NE and LA put together great defensive game plans. NE finally cracked the nut when they went with an offense they had in the playbook but had not practiced in a while. Basically, NE's OC Josh McDaniels gets the credit, not Belichick, for this one by scrapping the game plan in the 2nd half in effort to find something that worked. That led to the only TD of the game. Read more about it here (https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...ced-offensive-package-that-led-to-winning-td/). IMO, in order for that to work you need a QB of Brady's experience. I don't think any 2nd-year QB, even a good one like Goff, could have pulled that off. From what I've heard, Josh McDaniels scrapped the game plan not during halftime, but during the 2nd half on the sideline. A great example of making adjustments. So, this NE victory was heavily influenced by the Rams being out-coached.
The Rams had their chance at a TD, just missing an open WR in the end zone. Actually, it was a blown coverage by NE that left the WR wide open, the pass was good, but a NE safety managed to come all the way from the sideline to break up the pass near the post. Goff just took too long getting through his reads, and that gave the safety time to cover a lot of ground to break up the pass.
Loved Tony Romo's commentary.
Boring SB from an offensive scoring standpoint, but the beauty of this game was the battle of the defensive minds, and then what one team did to overcome being stymied by the opponents defense. Both NE and LA put together great defensive game plans. NE finally cracked the nut when they went with an offense they had in the playbook but had not practiced in a while. Basically, NE's OC Josh McDaniels gets the credit, not Belichick, for this one by scrapping the game plan in the 2nd half in effort to find something that worked. That led to the only TD of the game. Read more about it here (https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...ced-offensive-package-that-led-to-winning-td/). IMO, in order for that to work you need a QB of Brady's experience. I don't think any 2nd-year QB, even a good one like Goff, could have pulled that off. From what I've heard, Josh McDaniels scrapped the game plan not during halftime, but during the 2nd half on the sideline. A great example of making adjustments. So, this NE victory was heavily influenced by the Rams being out-coached.
The Rams had their chance at a TD, just missing an open WR in the end zone. Actually, it was a blown coverage by NE that left the WR wide open, the pass was good, but a NE safety managed to come all the way from the sideline to break up the pass near the post. Goff just took too long getting through his reads, and that gave the safety time to cover a lot of ground to break up the pass.
Loved Tony Romo's commentary.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
That seems to me like the kind of logic i only come across in US sports, that makes no sense. Sort of like - only 4th quarter matters, and the qb that wins the game is the better qb.on3m@n@rmy said:
Every team makes mistakes, errors, fails to convert chances. In a close game, both teams make enough errors to win or lose the game.
But even with all the errors the Saints and Rams made, the Saints still had done enough to win the game, or as close as you can get to it. - FG for the win with 20 seconds left from the 10 yard line inside a dome.
But the refs messed it up. Thing is, that sort of massive mess up doesn't happen for example to the Pats. It didn't happen last year to the Eagles. They beat Atlanta by a hair. The refs do that sort of mistake in the Eagles Falcons game, Eagles never win a superbowl and the commentators are saying "philly didn't do enough"
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,554
- 28,180
Well, that horrible no call at the very least changed the outcome of the game. No reasonable person can deny that. There are calls like this that happen several times per season, it's just rare they alter the outcome of a game, and even more rare when in the playoffs, which makes it ugly.
Great playmaking by McDaniels! I did not know that, so thanks for the article.
Great playmaking by McDaniels! I did not know that, so thanks for the article.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
Re:
How can you know? A bad call is a bad call and can have a massive effect on the game no matter when it is. The effect of this call is more obvious, but I don't think it follows to then say other, similar calls don't also have a large effect because of when they occur.
Alpe d'Huez said:
How can you know? A bad call is a bad call and can have a massive effect on the game no matter when it is. The effect of this call is more obvious, but I don't think it follows to then say other, similar calls don't also have a large effect because of when they occur.
- Jun 17, 2010
- 5,139
- 237
- 17,880
Actually, I agree w/you 100%. But that's how I, & many players like their Rams opponents, kind of rationalize it. Then in that game (Saints/Rams), you can look at the no-call on the face masking against Goff and say the Rams got robbed of a TD there. In any case, those kind of blown referee calls are what should drive the league to open up the review process to plays like that so the correct call gets made closer to 100% of the time (though it will be difficult in practice to achieve a goal of 100% correct calls every game). But they should at least strive to get the obvious calls right. Hopefully, the league will address this in the off-season and make some changes.The Hitch said:
Saying that other teams would have been a better game or that the Saints would have won is silly at best. There is no way to know. No one thought that this one would be 13 to 3.
Using that thinking, the Cowboys would have won the Superbowl because they beat the Saints, or the Titans because they beat the Pats...that's not how it works on the field.
Using that thinking, the Cowboys would have won the Superbowl because they beat the Saints, or the Titans because they beat the Pats...that's not how it works on the field.
- Jun 17, 2010
- 5,139
- 237
- 17,880
Agree there's no way to know. But the thing is nobody wants an opportunity taken away by bad officiating. Nobody wants bad officiating possibly affecting outcomes. It's not so much about knowing as it is about what's right.
- Jun 17, 2010
- 5,139
- 237
- 17,880
Re:
Josh McDaniels does not get enough credit and may be one of the most underappreciated OC's in the NFL. The Pats are fortunate to still have him. I mean, about a year ago he almost became the Colts HC! If he had accepted the Colts offer maybe the Pats would not have won this SB.
But wait! There's more! Peter King (on The Herd so you can look it up there if desired), talking to the Pats backup TE at their post-game party, related this response by the player to King's question about what happened on the sideline:Alpe d'Huez said:
After that change, about a half dozen plays later the Pats scored the game's only TD. This is the kind of chess match stuff I love. It's an example of why I can love that game even if the score is not so loveable.
Josh McDaniels does not get enough credit and may be one of the most underappreciated OC's in the NFL. The Pats are fortunate to still have him. I mean, about a year ago he almost became the Colts HC! If he had accepted the Colts offer maybe the Pats would not have won this SB.
Re:
To be clear, I agree that was the worst and MAYBE most costly no call in my (playoff) memory. But to insinuate that the Saints would have played the Pats better (or even won) is silly. I'll play though, the Pats would have won 35-7 over the Saints.on3m@n@rmy said:
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,554
- 28,180
Re:
Here were my predictions back before the season started. I'd say I did pretty good. The Saints were one play from getting to the SB, and the only team I was really wrong on was Jacksonville, but also the Bears and Falcons. I was wrong on Rodgers, who had an off-year battling injuries.
Here were my predictions back before the season started. I'd say I did pretty good. The Saints were one play from getting to the SB, and the only team I was really wrong on was Jacksonville, but also the Bears and Falcons. I was wrong on Rodgers, who had an off-year battling injuries.
Alpe d'Huez said:
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,554
- 28,180
Just for fun, I predict next year's Super Bowl will be won by the Patriots.
I know, really went out a limb there. But I'm not joking. I don't see them regressing much at all.
I know, really went out a limb there. But I'm not joking. I don't see them regressing much at all.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 3,404
- 17
- 13,510
Re: Re:
regardless of the regular time scores, they had the ball, and all the saints had to do was march down the field to within FG range to win it... should not have had an issue in finishing the game off and heading onto the superbowl, except they botched it. IF you're a championship side and deserve to be there, then you finish off things like that. You don't blow it they way they did...
most costly?jmdirt said:
regardless of the regular time scores, they had the ball, and all the saints had to do was march down the field to within FG range to win it... should not have had an issue in finishing the game off and heading onto the superbowl, except they botched it. IF you're a championship side and deserve to be there, then you finish off things like that. You don't blow it they way they did...
Re: Re:
I typed MAYBE most costly (capitalized and underline) because even if they would had gotten the call, they would have still needed to score. That discussion already took place a few pages back though so I won't go through it again...Archibald said:
- Jun 17, 2010
- 5,139
- 237
- 17,880
Re:
.
So, with all those draft picks I don't see the Pats regressing next season either. And they are pretty good super-early selection to win the SB next year. But, I'll throw 2 other AFC teams in the hat as strong contenders: KC obviously, and the Ravens with Lamar at QB.
Adding to the fun, a few things. First, the draft. Last year and this year. Apparently someone from the Pats (McDaniels I think) paid a visit to Baker Mayfield at OU during the NFL offseason last year. Now, IF the Pats had it in their mind then to consider drafting a QB, how much more might they consider drafting a QB in the upcoming draft when they have 12 draft picks from which to use in trading up? Fueling that wild thought, I've not verified, but heard a whopping 6 of those picks are in the first 3 rounds. That will not make the Hitch happyAlpe d'Huez said:
. So, with all those draft picks I don't see the Pats regressing next season either. And they are pretty good super-early selection to win the SB next year. But, I'll throw 2 other AFC teams in the hat as strong contenders: KC obviously, and the Ravens with Lamar at QB.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
Re:
Where do you stop though? On the BBC video about the call either Osi or Jason pointed out that calls are missed all the time. They said there's holding on pretty much every play that could be called. If you allow challenges for everything then the game may suddenly become unmanageable. Of course, players will have to adjust, but it could certainly change the character of many sports.
There's also the fact that officials are as much a part of the sport, any sport, as the teams are. Even as an amateur rugby player I got to know which refs called which fouls and adjusted my game accordingly. Playing the ref is as much a part of the game as playing the opposition.
As both a player and a coach my opinion was always that if you put yourself in the position where one bad call can decide a game, you have to accept that call might go against you. It's rubbish, but it is what it is. I suppose boxing is the most obvious example of this. If you don't knock your opponent out, you have to accept that the judges decide the fight and they might get it wrong.
on3m@n@rmy said:
Where do you stop though? On the BBC video about the call either Osi or Jason pointed out that calls are missed all the time. They said there's holding on pretty much every play that could be called. If you allow challenges for everything then the game may suddenly become unmanageable. Of course, players will have to adjust, but it could certainly change the character of many sports.
There's also the fact that officials are as much a part of the sport, any sport, as the teams are. Even as an amateur rugby player I got to know which refs called which fouls and adjusted my game accordingly. Playing the ref is as much a part of the game as playing the opposition.
As both a player and a coach my opinion was always that if you put yourself in the position where one bad call can decide a game, you have to accept that call might go against you. It's rubbish, but it is what it is. I suppose boxing is the most obvious example of this. If you don't knock your opponent out, you have to accept that the judges decide the fight and they might get it wrong.
- Jun 17, 2010
- 5,139
- 237
- 17,880
Good question. Alpe had some good thoughts on this upthread. In film review I've seen as many as 3 holds, just by an OL group. going on simultaneously. No way to catch everything. As you know, just have to deal with it. My hope is the league can improve the review process to at least catch the obvious penalties. But we have come a LONG way. I recall way back before replay review watching a nationally televised college game, and it was either a Cornhusker or Longhorn running back literally step a distance of one foot OB, not in traffic, but the refs did not see it and the RB went the remaining 20 or so yards for a TD that shouldn't have counted. TV broadcasters commented on it when the play was replayed for the TV audience. But there was nothing anyone could do.
- Aug 13, 2011
- 7,882
- 12,032
- 23,180
Maybe give the coach 3 challenges he can use as normally can with the added ability to challenge a penalty they believe shouldn't have been called against them or one that should have been called. If they lose the challenge they lose a timeout like normal.
- Oct 14, 2017
- 12,196
- 3,232
- 23,180
Re: Re:
Hold can be called on just about every play, HOWEVER those holding calls that aren't called are no where near as blatant as that missed call was. That's the issue, when the call is that obvious and it's missed people talk and complain.
King Boonen said:
Hold can be called on just about every play, HOWEVER those holding calls that aren't called are no where near as blatant as that missed call was. That's the issue, when the call is that obvious and it's missed people talk and complain.
Re: Re:
Specifically about holding, yes players hold on every play in the trenches, but the refs only call it when a big play is made (especially a big run). No one wants every hold called, but does any one just want the big play holds called? Not me.
Sorry in advance for my broken record: NY should review every play.
Very important skill in any game...BUT, that is one of my complaints about NFL officials, they are NOT consistent so it makes it tough to play to their whims.King Boonen said:
Specifically about holding, yes players hold on every play in the trenches, but the refs only call it when a big play is made (especially a big run). No one wants every hold called, but does any one just want the big play holds called? Not me.
Sorry in advance for my broken record: NY should review every play.
- Jun 17, 2010
- 5,139
- 237
- 17,880
inconsistency is one of the things I hate about MLB, where each umpire has their own strike zone that batters have to adjust to. They should just replace the plate ump with an electronic eye.
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,554
- 28,180
Re: Re:
But the team I think will really move forward to a real threat for next year, and beyond, are the Colts. They looked good already, but they are absolutely flush with cash and cap space. They need someone who can catch the ball, but they are almost there already, which means gaps are easier to fill, as is depth.
As to Lamar, I just don't see him running like he did this year, he can't, no one can sustain that. But, he's not a bad passer, he just needs work. If they can do that in the off season, improve his reads and and throws, run less, but still have running a threat, then it's possible they will contend again.
I know the Saints are going to be steaming, and motivated, but I also wonder how far that takes you? I also wonder how much more Brees has in the tank? Two years ago there were questions about his arm stamina through the season, and this Dec and Jan he wasn't quite throwing like before. Will he slip pretty quickly like Peyton Manning did? And so many others?
I like Philly to bounce back next year, IF Wentz can stay healthy. He was playing quite well when he got hurt. I also like Atlanta, that team is still too stacked and well coached to falter the way they did. They were decimated with injuries, especially on defense, lost games they shouldn't have, and they were still coming on late.
KC is likely to get rid of both Houston and Berry. As great as both have been, they are not cheap, and dealing with injuries. Can they fill enough gaps on defense? Will their offense continue where it was, or will teams adapt enough to Mahomes (unlikely on this one, to me).
The Pats are also likely to have cap room, as Gronk is either going to retire (probably), or will restructure his contract to get some easy money and move to diminished role before retiring for easy security money.on3m@n@rmy said:
But the team I think will really move forward to a real threat for next year, and beyond, are the Colts. They looked good already, but they are absolutely flush with cash and cap space. They need someone who can catch the ball, but they are almost there already, which means gaps are easier to fill, as is depth.
As to Lamar, I just don't see him running like he did this year, he can't, no one can sustain that. But, he's not a bad passer, he just needs work. If they can do that in the off season, improve his reads and and throws, run less, but still have running a threat, then it's possible they will contend again.
I know the Saints are going to be steaming, and motivated, but I also wonder how far that takes you? I also wonder how much more Brees has in the tank? Two years ago there were questions about his arm stamina through the season, and this Dec and Jan he wasn't quite throwing like before. Will he slip pretty quickly like Peyton Manning did? And so many others?
I like Philly to bounce back next year, IF Wentz can stay healthy. He was playing quite well when he got hurt. I also like Atlanta, that team is still too stacked and well coached to falter the way they did. They were decimated with injuries, especially on defense, lost games they shouldn't have, and they were still coming on late.
KC is likely to get rid of both Houston and Berry. As great as both have been, they are not cheap, and dealing with injuries. Can they fill enough gaps on defense? Will their offense continue where it was, or will teams adapt enough to Mahomes (unlikely on this one, to me).
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Re:
Well.
This was a really weird one because the Pats were an above average team this season but not by much. They were clearly worse than the Chiefs, Chargers and Texans. I would argue that teams like the Colts and Steelers also were the same level just had much tougher schedules and divisions.
But in the playoffs, they were the best. Better than any team in the AFC, and better than any team in the NFC.
I give them that.
I think its clear though that if the regular season wasn't tilted so far in the favor of the Pats they would have been the 3rd or 4 seed. So they would have had to face 2 away games, no bye week.
And sometimes, teams that are the best in the playoffs, may struggle to overcome having to win 3 games (with everything that can go wrong in 1 game), including 2 away to get to the SB.
So what happens next season. If the Pats play the same in the regular season do they get the same easy schedule while the rest of the AFC kills eachother again? If so, yeah i see a similar Pats outcome.
If they play like they did in the playoffs the whole season, maybe they'll tire eachother out again.
Brady was also noticeably worse this season. Including nothing special in the p.o. The biggest joke of the season is that the Pats defense carrying him to the SB counts as him "michael jordaning himself to 5 rings".
Will he stay the same, improve, or with another year, maybe deteriorate even more for 2019. Bellichick might be able to carry him again but it might be even harder.
Alpe d'Huez said:
Well.
This was a really weird one because the Pats were an above average team this season but not by much. They were clearly worse than the Chiefs, Chargers and Texans. I would argue that teams like the Colts and Steelers also were the same level just had much tougher schedules and divisions.
But in the playoffs, they were the best. Better than any team in the AFC, and better than any team in the NFC.
I give them that.
I think its clear though that if the regular season wasn't tilted so far in the favor of the Pats they would have been the 3rd or 4 seed. So they would have had to face 2 away games, no bye week.
And sometimes, teams that are the best in the playoffs, may struggle to overcome having to win 3 games (with everything that can go wrong in 1 game), including 2 away to get to the SB.
So what happens next season. If the Pats play the same in the regular season do they get the same easy schedule while the rest of the AFC kills eachother again? If so, yeah i see a similar Pats outcome.
If they play like they did in the playoffs the whole season, maybe they'll tire eachother out again.
Brady was also noticeably worse this season. Including nothing special in the p.o. The biggest joke of the season is that the Pats defense carrying him to the SB counts as him "michael jordaning himself to 5 rings".
Will he stay the same, improve, or with another year, maybe deteriorate even more for 2019. Bellichick might be able to carry him again but it might be even harder.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram