By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

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.



Around the Network
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



#TeamRuff Puppybowl champions!



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
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 Patriots had made that extra point earlier, they wouldn't have gone for two point conversions on both of their following touchdowns. An extra point has a 95% rate for success whereas a two point conversion is in the 40-50% range.

The existence of this thread explains why my NFL thread got so few replies.

Miguel_Zorro said:

The NFL Overtime format is garbage.

It's a lot better since they modified the sudden death rule. Previously it was really crappy that a team only needed to win the coin toss, move the ball over half the field and score a field goal to win. Now the defense gets a fair chance to give their offense a chance to get the ball.

As for this specific football game, given how the Patriots marched down the field again and again towards the end of the game and given how inept the Falcons offense was, is it even reasonable to expect that the Falcons could have won? Their defense was worn down because the Patriots had the ball for almost 40 minutes compared to the Falcons' 20, so in turn the Patriots defense was rested and still in good shape. The Patriots didn't even need many plays to march down the whole field in overtime. They made it look easy.

1. I made this thread since I didn't see anyone else make a thread about the super bowl. I figured that I'd try talking about football. Sure, I know almost nothing about it, but nothing could possibly go wrong, right?

 

2. 40 vs 20? that's quite ridiculous. didn't think they were on defense for so long.



Get ready for a year of: "Don't let _____ distract you from the fact that the Falcons blew a 25 point lead."



I think the mods should give you a funny avatar and signature for a month over this!



Kerotan said:
I think the mods should give you a funny avatar and signature for a month over this!

On the bright side, I'm sure it won't be as bad as your profile picture. 



NotLikeThis