Haffa
Guest
- Messages
- 15,881
Didn’t they lose last year?Brady and Cronk.
Unbeatable
Didn’t they lose last year?Brady and Cronk.
Unbeatable
Remains to be seen if McVey and Goff can live up to what the eagles did.Didn’t they lose last year?
That's not it, chief.
Nothing you said there addressed anything said in my post man.
It's fine, the Pats won and they probably deserve to, overall i'd agree they were the better team. It's just games shouldnt end like that. If Patty Mahomes gets the ball first and scores, statistically the Pats would still look just as dominant, and Brady would have been just as surgical and yet the fans would be denied the chance for the greatest QB of all time to add another pelt on his wall. It's not a fair or satisfying way to end things
Let the players, on all sides of the ball from both teams decide the outcomes. Not a coin toss.
You can't honestly believe any of this shit you've written can you?.
what a great win by the rams. they entered a hostile environment as you could get, took the saints best shot at the beginning of the game, hung in there and slowly worked their way back in the game. they overpowered the saints by the end. goff made some outstanding throws and out played brees facing much more trying conditions. the rams d came to play and held the saints in check. and what can you say about greg zuerlein, longest fg to win a playoff game, two clutch kicks at the end to win the game for the rams.
so bush league by the saints to allow fans to bring in whistles. i hope they lose draft picks for it. too bad the rams were better than them. i wonder if they were blowing the whistles walking down the street after the loss. f**kwits.
so happy they lost the way they did with the controversial call. the refs showed throughout the game they were gonna let the players play. that's why they let so many facemasks by the saints d go without flags. a saints player stomping a rams player's helmet while he was on the ground, nothing. so why are they crying when the refs let the rams do the same thing? i didn't see them crying throughout the game with saints d allowed to do as they pleased. suck shit you dirty, cheating f**ks.
.
You can't honestly believe any of this shit you've written can you?
I mean I hate the Taints more than anyone on this board, but holy f**kin shit...
That happens every week why is anyone surprised it happens in these games.Yeah dude. Letting some facemasks and shirt grabs go is fine. But that not called PI was blatant.
Coin tosses decide cricket matches and series from the start, give big advantages in golden point, it’s been part of sport forever.
Each sport obviously has it’s reason for choosing how they play out OT, and if players were really that unhappy about it, you would think it would change.
Coin tosses decide cricket matches and series from the start, give big advantages in golden point, it’s been part of sport forever.
Each sport obviously has it’s reason for choosing how they play out OT, and if players were really that unhappy about it, you would think it would change.
Reading and listening to ex players about this issue, majority are in favour of the current situation, because what it the perfect situation? one argument was that if each team gets the ball, and both score a touchdown, when does it end? if the next score wins, then the argument becomes, we only had the ball once, and they had it twice, so it’s still not fair.
In all the fallout, it is not even comparable from how both games ended, one was a great game of football won within the rules, the other was decided by a refereeing blunder.
As someone else pointed out. At least if you have the ball once you can go for the 2 point conversion and win the game if you don't think you can stop them.
Would a rule, that if a two point converted TD in OT by the first attacking team be enough to end the game, or do both teams still need to touch the ball? The second team could just as easily do the same with their chance, and then we are back to square one, of course it would be rare, but so would be two TDs in OT.
People are arguing that Maholmes didn’t get a shot, or that if the chiefs won the coin toss, that they would have won the game.
Drew Brees the highest rating QB for the season, had the ball first in OT, they lost.
The D went out and did their job. Defence should be getting as much credit as the offence in both these games.
Would a rule, that if a two point converted TD in OT by the first attacking team be enough to end the game, or do both teams still need to touch the ball? The second team could just as easily do the same with their chance, and then we are back to square one, of course it would be rare, but so would be two TDs in OT.
You're not getting it.
One of the key aspects of American football is that it is essentially 2 teams within a team (3 if you count special teams) which have nothing to do with the other. That is why you can have elite defences like Chicago who can't get over the line because they have average offence and vice versa. Quite clearly both teams need to play both sides of the ball to get a gauge of who the better team is.
Your point about Brees is a perfect example. Yes the LA defence did its job and what happened after that? The Rams offence then had to perform and the Saints defence got their opportunity. Would you have been happy if in that scenario the Rams won the game because the Saints failed to score without the saints defence getting a right of reply because that is essentially what happened in the Pats game but in reverse.