Top 5, shmop 5. The Falcons D had very similar performances to the Pats D in the playoffs.
I haven’t seen a lot of Falcons games this year, but they are clearly finding their stride offensively in the offseason. Ryan looks great and they have multiple stars at skill positions. Patriots have Edelman plus a bunch of mid-to-lower tier receivers, a versatile backfield and the G.O.A.T. at QB. They also have an opportunistic defense that gives up a lot of yards but not a lot of points.
Obviously the coaching and experience edge is heavily in favor of NE. We know Brady won’t choke. Will Ryan thrive or take a dive under Super Bowl pressure?
I expect a competitive game. Of Brady and Belichick’s 6 superbowl appearances, all 6 have been decided by 4 points or less. I don’t see any reason to think either team can dominate the other like they did this past week.
The thing with Atlanta’s Defense is their numbers look worse than their performance. Once the Falcons are up by 20 points, the defense moves into a prevent, which means the other teams gets a few scores in garbage time. Falcons get the win but the defensive stats look bad. That’s a trade Quinn will make every time, because the W is what matters.
Plus that defense has gotten steadily better over the course of the year as the team gelled. If you run the number for just the last 8 games of the season, the Falcons D looks much better.
Remember, this is the defense that held Rodgers scoreless for the first half of a playoff game. Sure, the Packers got some points in the second half… after being down 31-0. I don’t think it will be that much of a rout against the Patriots but I don’t think Brady will be able to score at will either.
The one GOAT the Patriots have is the head coach, not the QB.
To each his own.
From your lips to God’s ears. Hopefully.
If I’m interpreting Hal’s tiebreakers correctly, I need something like a Pats win like 38-35 or even higher scoring than that. FWIW, the Vegas line seems to have stabilized at about Pats -3, 59.5 O/U; or about a 31-28 Pats win. I think it’s going to be a bit higher scoring than that, but maybe not 14 points more.
[QUOTE=NFL Rulebook]
It is not a safety:
If a forward pass from behind the line of scrimmage is incomplete in the end zone.
If a defensive player, in the field of play, intercepts a pass or catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass, scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick, and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team’s possession. The ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the player’s foot or other body part touched the ground to establish possession.
[/QUOTE]
This doesn’t help. The questions are:
- Did the defensive player’s original momentum carry him into the end zone? I think the defender did in fact intentionally roll over backward into the end zone. But it’s close enough that I don’t really blame a referee for not calling a safety there, based on a tough close judgement call.
- Where did the player’s foot or other body part touch the ground to establish possession? Well, here we’ve got lots of body parts touching the ground, from inside the end zone up to the one yard line. Which one to use? Well, the only coherent reading of the rules would go back to the normal method of establishing where possession is: the location of the ball. Note that there’s absolutely nothing here about ‘any body part touching the end zone means there’s a touchback’-- that’s only a rule for downing punts.
It’s just annoying when, after the fact, the NFL justifies the referees’ decision by using a clause that, according to the rules, did not apply in that situation.
You can’t call a safety. If he wasn’t touching the end zone when he got the ball then he’d be down by contact right there.
The only way that could have been a safety is if they threw out the “forward progress” rule for ball carriers.
I don’t think there’s any rule that says a defender can’t pick up and advance a fumble in the case we’re talking about, so he wasn’t down the instant he recovered the ball. No opposing player touched him while he was on the ground before he moved into the end zone, so he wasn’t ‘down by contact’.
And if the defender tried to advance the ball, provided their own momentum to go back into the end zone, and was downed in the end zone, that’s a safety.
One could argue that by rolling backwards the defender made it clear that he was not attempting to advance the ball, and so should have been whistled down at that point. Which is a plausible argument, but relies on a judgment call that could go the other way, and if it went the other way, a safety is plausible.
There’s not much argument for a touchback, though, unless you’re trying to apply rules that only apply to downing a punt.
You sure? I thought he recovered it while basically in (or adjacent to) a scrum.
I don’t think any opposing player contacted him.
But at any rate, if he was down by contact, then sure no safety, but the ball should be spotted (for the Falcon’s next play) where the ball was when it was recovered. Certainly you don’t get a touchback if you’re downed in the field of play and then roll back into the end zone.
Agreed, with two exceptions:
- If his foot was touching the line when he established possession, touchback.
- If his momentum carried him into the endzone, touchback.
I think they gave him the benefit of the doubt and just ruled that his momentum carried him, even though it was pretty clearly him intentionally trying for a touchback. I’d have to watch it again (anyone got video?) but I remember also thinking at the time that his foot was close enough to the line when he recovered that he might have already technically been “in” the endzone before he started rolling.
The Pats defense has not faced a good offense at all in the past two months.
Which is why most think the Falcons will win
The last NFC Team with a good offense faced was Nov 13th and they lost.
seattle
Now they face the High flying Falcons so…
Yeah, I like the Falcons chances as well. I think the Pats are a clear favorite given that they have a comparable offense and a better defense, but the Falcons offense is pretty singular. They are going to have to score early and often, but they are certainly capable of doing so. I’m hoping for a high-scoring shootout, say 34-30 Falcons.
I wouldn’t call Seattle’s offense good. Maybe average. But the Pats only played 4 NFC teams this year and two were the Rams and the 49ers. Lucky AFC East…
YUP, defense has not been challenged at all in the past 8 weeks and that sometimes is not a good thing when the next game is the SB
Well, the Steeler have a pretty good offense.
I can’t tell since they
-
scored no TD’s against KC the week before
-
Unable to get into the endzone on 1st and goal from the 1yd line vs the Pats
True, but that was against the two best defenses in the AFC. Pittsburgh has a big three on offense that essentially carried them this season. They were considered to be a formidable offense this season. That said, I think the Falcons offense is even more prolific.