• PCF is an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Super Bowl - Where do you stand (1 Viewer)

Who Will win the Super Bow

  • Patriots

    Votes: 21 27.6%

  • Eagles

    Votes: 25 32.9%

  • I don't watch American Football

    Votes: 2 2.6%

  • IDGAF

    Votes: 28 36.8%
  • Total voters
    76
FB_IMG_1517806480000.jpg
 
Being a Steeler fan, I will say that the perennial loser Eagle fans needed this esteem boost. Enjoy your day in the sun.
 
It really felt good to beat New England and I'm not even a big Eagles fan. Flyers and Sixers mostly, but I support all my home teams. E-A-G-L-E-S ... GO EAGLES!!!!!! (y) :thumbsup:
 
What the hell just happened tonight? Beat by a team with a backup qb.

I wish the eagles would have won the first matchup with Donovan McNabb instead of this one with Foles
 
Anthony Martino said:
It's funny when the Pats were up against the Falcons getting destroyed 28 - 3 I was involved in a huge group chat with my coworkers. They were ALL against the Pats, making their "stick a fork in them, they're done!" comments and such.

I had already predicted to them the score of 34 to 28 in favor of the Pats, which came to pass. When we were down 28-3 and they were tearing me up in the group text I told them they had no idea who they were dealing with, and that they'd see in the 2nd half.

Later I got to type in "wow, you guys got quiet all of a sudden!" when the Pats started closing the gap. And of course when they won all the other guys could say was "they must've cheated"

I think at this point it's pretty obvious what's happening. The Patriots are like a cat and their opponents are the mice. Cats like to play with their food, make it think it has an actual chance at escape, or winning the competition.

So the Pats just let the other teams get these huge leads, they gift them a handicap advantage for half the game, only to return and smoke them with a few minutes left on the clock to show how utterly dominant they are.

Tom Brady, if you're reading this, I want you to put a baby in me.
Click to expand...
GrumpyCatMalaka said:
Given the bevy of Victoria's Secret models that multiple Patriots have dated/married, she may register as ugly to them.

And it's "their" way.
Click to expand...
Spell it with me!!! E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!

 
Last edited:
MaxB said:
What the hell just happened tonight? Beat by a team with a backup qb.

I wish the eagles would have won the first matchup with Donovan McNabb instead of this one with Foles
Click to expand...

It was an exciting game right down to the last seconds. If they completed that last pass and then made the 2 pt conversion, that would have been crazy!
 
Defensively... the worst game ever.
I still think both TD calls could have gone the other way, the first one more so than the Ertz dive
 
krafticus said:
Defensively... the worst game ever.
I still think both TD calls could have gone the other way, the first one more so than the Ertz dive
Click to expand...

I try to be pretty objective with the NFL's awful "surviving the ground" catch rule, and "complete the process of the catch" rule. It's an utter f*ck show that has become the focal point of this season, taking away from what would have otherwise been great games.

The Ertz catch I have to disagree... three steps while vertical = runner. He then dove and crossed the plane. Touchdown.

The first one, I definitely would agree could have gone either way based on the NFL rules as they are today (which pretty much everyone knows won't be that way next season). The problem for the Patriots was their position in all of this mess. I can't find the link right now, but they won 4 or 5 games as a result of this rule. Some one has a nice blog post with slo-mo video links to each play. 3 opposing team TDs were taken away late in games this season to give the Pats a win due to players not "completing the process of the catch", whereas 2 Pats "bobbled" catches in/out of the endzone were awarded as TDs late in games, to give them the win.

5 games being decided by refs is no joke... and more than a quarter of each team's season. It's also a bad look for the NFL as a whole. Games should be determined clearly on the field of play - not under the hood by the gents in stripes.

While I don't think the NFL or refs work to "rig" games, I do think directives come from league offices. I'm fairly certain there was a meeting on this issue before the Super Bowl that basically said, "no - we're not giving the Pats a walk on this rule anymore." Call it "refs justice" or whatever you want, but I do think the Pats were a little bit victims of circumstance. Some would argue that that stupid rule got them to the Super Bowl in the first place. But the NFL - well aware of the controversy the rule created, and the amount of fans turning away from their game as a result of retarded interpretations - decided that the Pats would not win their biggest game as a result of it. They also knew that a 400 word explanation on national television on the game's biggest stage would be a disaster and a complete embarrassment.

It was just a matter of them (the Patriots) being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Live by the sword - die by the sword.

Or in this case... Win by the rule - lose by the rule.
 
Last edited:
The Ertz TD was definitely good. Like @justdomedude said, Ertz caught the ball, then turned upfield and took at least two steps and then dove into the endzone. If they had overturned this call I would have probably just stopped watching the game at that point. As an aside, does anyone else find Chris Collinsworth utterly annoying? I'm not sure if he was trying to stir up a sense of drama with his questioning of this ruling, or if he is a secret Patriots fan, but his commentary was just absurd. What a douche.

The 1st TD probably should have been turned over by the letter of the law, which is an absolutely horrible rule and has been as mentioned inconsistently applied. I guess the bobble was so slight they felt they didn't have enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field.
 
kirchhausen said:
The Ertz TD was definitely good. Like @justdomedude said, Ertz caught the ball, then turned upfield and took at least two steps and then dove into the endzone. If they had overturned this call I would have probably just stopped watching the game at that point. As an aside, does anyone else find Chris Collinsworth utterly annoying? I'm not sure if he was trying to stir up a sense of drama with his questioning of this ruling, or if he is a secret Patriots fan, but his commentary was just absurd. What a douche.

The 1st TD probably should have been turned over by the letter of the law, which is an absolutely horrible rule and has been as mentioned inconsistently applied. I guess the bobble was so slight they felt they didn't have enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field.
Click to expand...

Collinsworth is a bitch.

Search Twitter for "Chris Collinsworth" ... it's brutal.

My favorite so far: "Chris Collinsworth is still in the booth, arguing that the Patriots still have enough time to win.'

:D:LOL: :laugh::ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 
justsomedude said:
I try to be pretty objective with the NFL's awful "surviving the ground" catch rule, and "complete the process of the catch" rule. It's an utter f*ck show that has become the focal point of this season, taking away from what would have otherwise been great games.

The Ertz catch I have to disagree... three steps while vertical = runner. He then dove and crossed the plane. Touchdown.

The first one, I definitely would agree could have gone either way based on the NFL rules as they are today (which pretty much everyone knows won't be that way next season). The problem for the Patriots was their position in all of this mess. I can't find the link right now, but they won 4 or 5 games as a result of this rule. Some one has a nice blog post with slo-mo video links to each play. 3 opposing team TDs were taken away late in games this season to give the Pats a win due to players not "completing the process of the catch", whereas 2 Pats "bobbled" catches in/out of the endzone were awarded as TDs late in games, to give them the win.

5 games being decided by refs is no joke... and more than a quarter of each team's season. It's also a bad look for the NFL as a whole. Games should be determined clearly on the field of play - not under the hood by the gents in stripes.

While I don't think the NFL or refs work to "rig" games, I do think directives come from league offices. I'm fairly certain there was a meeting on this issue before the Super Bowl that basically said, "no - we're not giving the Pats a walk on this rule anymore." Call it "refs justice" or whatever you want, but I do think the Pats were a little bit victims of circumstance. Some would argue that that stupid rule got them to the Super Bowl in the first place. But the NFL - well aware of the controversy the rule created, and the amount of fans turning away from their game as a result of retarded interpretations - decided that the Pats would not win their biggest game as a result of it. They also knew that a 400 word explanation on national television on the game's biggest stage would be a disaster and a complete embarrassment.

It was just a matter of them (the Patriots) being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Live by the sword - die by the sword.

Or in this case... Win by the rule - lose by the rule.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe for one second the refs were told to do anything different for this game; to side one way more than the other.

For the 1st TD, if they called it incomplete, I think that would stand. I do believe that they will usually side on calling it a TD more often, knowing that all scoring plays are reviewed. If it was called incomplete, there would have been a challenge.

Bottom line, Brady played his ass off. So did Foles. Neither Defense showed up. If the pats stop the 4th down conversion in the 4th quarter (for which there was a pick play that could have drawn an O. Pass Interference), they game would have probably ended there. The Pats D couldn’t stop the short passes over the middle, and it killed them. Not that the Eagles has an answer for Brady either.

505 passing yards and a L. Oh well

I’m a fan. They don’t pay me or know who I am, so I didn’t lose any sleep over it

The best part of this...

Baseball season is about to start. !!!!!!
 
krafticus said:
Bottom line, Brady played his ass off. So did Foles. Neither Defense showed up. If the pats stop the 4th down conversion in the 4th quarter (for which there was a pick play that could have drawn an O. Pass Interference), they game would have probably ended there. The Pats D couldn’t stop the short passes over the middle, and it killed them. Not that the Eagles has an answer for Brady either.
Click to expand...

Agree across the board. The defenses were just awful. Awful, awful, awful.
 
Ertz was a no brainier, IMO. Exactly what @justsomedude said.

To me, Corey Clement's catch was not a close call either. I thought he had possession, got 2 feet in, stepped half out in the third step, then bobbled the ball as he fell. I'm sure Pats fans will take exception, and that's fine. I didn't look at it that critically, but that's how I saw it on the replays.

So two feet down with possession = a catch, so play is over (in the end zone) and third step half out and subsequent bobble doesn't matter.

Edit: I do agree that the Clement TD was easier because it was ruled a TD on the field.

Edit 2: And for all the Chris Collinsworth complaints, Al Michaels was worse. He stepped in dog shit three times that I recall: called a 1st and goal when it was 2nd and 1, said the Pats had their first lead *before* the PAT (when it was still tied) and also called the Brady fumble at the end "the first sack of the game."

WTF, Al? I always liked you, but it might be time to hang it up.
 
Last edited:
WedgeRock said:
To me, Corey Clement's catch was not a close call either. I thought he had possession, got 2 feet in, stepped half out in the third step, then bobbled the ball as he fell. I'm sure Pats fans will take exception, and that's fine. I didn't look at it that critically, but that's how I saw it on the replays.
Click to expand...

Actually, he wasn't even half out on the third step. There was an angle from behind and low to the ground (which they only showed ONCE!), that showed that foot grazing the turf, with the rubber material flying up as his shoe skidded across it. This demonstrated there was contact with the ground on the third step BEFORE his toe hit the white.

I didn't want to get into it, but since you mentioned it, I think it needs to be put out there. Hopefully some one has a slo-mo gif of that angle.
 
WedgeRock said:
Edit 2: And for all the Chris Collinsworth complaints, Al Michaels was worse. He stepped in dog shit three times that I recall: called a 1st and goal when it was 2nd and 1, said the Pats had their first lead *before* the PAT (when it was still tied) and also called the Brady fumble at the end "the first sack of the game."
Click to expand...

That was the 1st sack of the game. If the QB is hit behind the line of scrimmage and he fumbles the ball, it is considered a sack, even if he doesn't go down. Look at the box score.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

Nuhockey
Yahoo NFL Survivor Pool 2025 - No Fee to Enter and Poker related prize awarded to the Winner
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
upNdown
upNdown
dazoki
Thanks to PCF - successfully ran my first 2 table tourney
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
dazoki
dazoki
ArielVer18
What rules do you prefer for the stand up game?
Replies
16
Views
5K
Coyotesetter
Coyotesetter
Booshme
Chip Breakdown for $2NL ----> $20NL, what do you guys think? 500-Chip Set with custom Denoms
Replies
9
Views
41K
Darson
Darson
allforcharity
Happy Lunar New Year! Which Chinese Zodiac poker animal are you?
Replies
17
Views
2K
inapinch
inapinch
Back
Top Bottom