Forums - Sports Discussion - Super Bowl LI: RIP Falcons (and monocle_layton)

jason1637 said:
benji232 said:

Thats not the point, the point is it was an anti-climatic ending to a great match. I don't care who won. It was just a crappy ending... period. Winning such a prestegious championship as the Superbowl on a coin flip doesn't feel right at all.

How else would they decide who grts ownership of yh ball? Rock paper scissors?

No... By maybe letting both teams get the ball atleast once?



Predictions for LT console sales:

PS4: 120M

XB1: 70M

WiiU: 14M

3DS: 60M

Vita: 13M

Around the Network
monocle_layton said:
thismeintiel said:

Better run and hide before Falcon's fans come after you.

 

DroidKnight said:

You're gonna need a whole new fresh start, to feel like a new person.

I like how no one bothered to criticize me when I ran a troll account, but now feel perfectly fine with burying my grave due to this.

Please people, I beg for mercy. I'm good at puzzles, not football games.

Hey, I don't wish you any harm.  Just calling it how I see it. 

monocle_layton said:
What bothers me is that if the Patriots made that 1-pointer, they wouldn't have even needed to enter OT.

A lot of cool plays from both sides though. At the end of the day, a good game is what matters most.

If the Falcons would have taken that field goal when they were in range, instead of trying to push farther and were pushed back out of range, there wouldn't have been OT, either.



Falcons are still a good team. I can't believe they let the Patriots come back like that.



VGPolyglot said:
thismeintiel said:

May I join you?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn the OT rule used to be that each team had a chance to have the ball.  Having it where only one time gets it just doesn't seem right.

It used to be that you would get the win with any scoring play on the first drive, and then it changed to each team having at least one drive, to the current system where you can win on the first drive with a touchdown.

Ok. I thought so.  I greatly prefer the each gets one drive rule.  Doesn't seem right for both teams to have the exact same score, yet there's a chance that one team doesn't even get a chance with the ball.  If the Falcons had gotten a drive, too, but were denied by the Patriots, it wouldn't feel so cheap.



Hoping Matt Ryan can get back to the SB next season.



Around the Network

Welp.
Some may like this, some may not, some may even want my head on a pitchfork, but after watching that game, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind on who the greatest quarterback of all-time is.



Hardware Comparison Threads:

PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2019 vs. 2020
(https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/241660/ps4xbons-2019-vs-2020/1/)

thismeintiel said:
VGPolyglot said:

It used to be that you would get the win with any scoring play on the first drive, and then it changed to each team having at least one drive, to the current system where you can win on the first drive with a touchdown.

Ok. I thought so.  I greatly prefer the each gets one drive rule.  Doesn't seem right for both teams to have the exact same score, yet there's a chance that one team doesn't even get a chance with the ball.  If the Falcons had gotten a drive, too, but were denied by the Patriots, it wouldn't feel so cheap.

I just find it annoying how it's sudden death. What is this, Smash bros? 

 

I don't think any other team does sudden death, and for a good reason- anything can happen in an additional quarter. It could've been sent to OT2- heck, maybe the patriots would've made an additional 30 points. You never know. 

I find it funny how I care more about the OT rule than the actual game. I would've loved to see an additional quarter of them going at it, regardless of who would end up ending.



benji232 said:
IkePoR said:

Falcons dug their grave long before Overtime.  

Thats not the point, the point is it was an anti-climatic ending to a great match. I don't care who won. It was just a crappy ending... period. Winning such a prestegious championship as the Superbowl on a coin flip doesn't feel right at all.

You're simplifying the outcome. The Patriots didn't win because they won the coin flip, the Patriots won because they got a touchdown. It's offense vs defence and it's the defense's job to not let the opposing team get a touchdown and the Falcons failed. If it was all down to a coin flip then why did both teams keep playing? What was that about?



monocle_layton said:
thismeintiel said:

Ok. I thought so.  I greatly prefer the each gets one drive rule.  Doesn't seem right for both teams to have the exact same score, yet there's a chance that one team doesn't even get a chance with the ball.  If the Falcons had gotten a drive, too, but were denied by the Patriots, it wouldn't feel so cheap.

I just find it annoying how it's sudden death. What is this, Smash bros? 

 

I don't think any other team does sudden death, and for a good reason- anything can happen in an additional quarter. It could've been sent to OT2- heck, maybe the patriots would've made an additional 30 points. You never know. 

I find it funny how I care more about the OT rule than the actual game. I would've loved to see an additional quarter of them going at it, regardless of who would end up ending.

I don't mind it being sudden death, but only AFTER each team gets a chance to have the ball.  Both teams played their asses off to get to where they are in the playoffs and during the SB, and they both ended up with the SAME EXACT SCORE.  For that to be the current OT rule is just ridiculous and makes the win feel cheapened.



lol game