U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-26-2017, 05:17 PM
Status: "Beach time!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Fredericksburg/Virginia Beach, VA
10,684 posts, read 11,090,025 times
Reputation: 13955

Advertisements

I think anyone being dismissive of either team's chances is either a homer or kidding themselves. I definitely can appreciate what history tells us when a #1 scoring defense squares off with a #1 scoring offense. Add in the Patriots offense is pretty impressive in its own right, and going up against a young defense that finished in the bottom third of the league. With that said, that same defense got better as the season progressed, and has had two pretty solid showings in the playoffs. Meanwhile the Patriots defense didn't exactly square off against the best of NFL QB talent all season long. And yet even when they did face a top-tier QB in Ben Roethlisberger they looked really good against him.

The possibilities are endless. I've seen predictions of 39-20 Falcons and would be impressed if their defense keeps Tom Brady and the Pats at 20. I've seen a 40-16 prediction for the Patriots and would be equally impressed if that defense holds the Falcons offense under 20.

And while nothing in the NFL surprises me, I'm thinking this game is closer to a 31-28 type game. I think Matt Ryan and the Falcons are going to get their shots in. They're a well balanced offense and far and away the best the Pats will face this year. But I also know if any offense can keep up it's the Patriots. The Brady-BB Patriots are unstoppable in the playoffs unless playing the Broncos or Giants!

I'm still not ready to pick a winner but I think both teams will have a good showing in an otherwise awful playoffs.

 
Old 01-26-2017, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,628 posts, read 4,224,097 times
Reputation: 4582
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock View Post
The key is holding Atlanta under 30, they are 1-4 this season when the opponent controls the clock, the ball, forces them to slow down. 1-4 if they can't hit 30...

Smart money is on Belichick with 2 weeks to prep for supposedly Greatest Show On Turf 2.0. Lock? Of course not, but this is more than doable. Atlanta played a bunch of either bad or injured defense the last two months. The New England Patriots defense is neither bad nor injured. As someone else daid, Falcons best defense is their offense. Punish that Falcons D with ball control and force that offense to play a fully healthy Pats D that can match up with them fairly well (not great, but Pats can match up better than most)...you give Belichick two weeks prep, he's gonna figure out a way to scheme for that offense...

Good luck to Atlanta...
Normally i would agree whole heatedly.. But i am not sold on 2 weeks.. Belichick has every team figured out as soon as he sits down at this desk.. and its no secret.. he is gonna jam Julio at the line.. and double him over the top.. they are gonna force the Falcons to beat them without Julio.. they will get pressure up front with only 4.... They are gonna bring their safety in close and STOP the run.. nothing really to figure out IMO... SOP for the Pats and it works..

The Pats problem is the 2 weeks.. besides their first SB back in 2001, they have always underachieved in SBs... they always seem to be either flat or play to the level of their opponents... I think the 2 weeks hurts them more than it helps them. They played pretty bad vs the Texans this year in the Playoffs, coming off that bye week.. If i were the Patriots, i would want to play THIS SUNDAY and NOT NEXT SUNDAY...
 
Old 01-26-2017, 08:26 PM
Status: "RIP Solomon Tekah" (set 10 days ago)
 
1,224 posts, read 581,653 times
Reputation: 1183
I heard on the radio that the biggest reason Quinn picked Kyle Shanahan was because he's unpredictable....Dan said that he gave him fits when he was the defensive coordinator going against Shanahan. It will be interesting to see how this chess game between Belichick & Shanahan turns out. I fully expect the Pats to blitz more than they usually do in this game. ATL has the right personnel though. Quinn will obviously have some blitzs ready for Brady. It feels like it's been a month since the last game.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 03:43 PM
 
37 posts, read 22,088 times
Reputation: 30
Patroits!!!tom brady is getting his 5th ring,the falcons just got lucky!!!

only reason they beat green bay was cause greenbay had their recievers out!!heck dallas should have been in the superbowl!
 
Old 01-28-2017, 10:49 PM
 
Location: SF Giants Nation 2010◆2012◆2014
1,029 posts, read 583,094 times
Reputation: 717
It would be very cool if Brady got his 5th ring, but Atlanta is strong and I believe they will win.
 
Old 01-29-2017, 07:16 AM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 7,278,422 times
Reputation: 37479
*As has been noted, New England will set the record (actually, they'll break the tie they currently hold with Dallas, Denver, and Pittsburgh) for most Super Bowl appearances. The historical progression of the record for most Super Bowl appearances is as follows:
1 - 1966 (Green Bay Packers, Kansas City Chiefs)
2 - 1967 (Green Bay Packers); 1969 (Kansas City Chiefs); 1970 (Baltimre Colts); 1971 (Dallas Cowboys); 1972 (Miami Dolphins)
3 - 1973 (Miami Dolphins); 1974 (Minnesota Vikings); 1975 (Dallas Cowboys)
4 - 1976 (Minnesota Vikings); 1977 (Dallas Cowboys)
5 - 1978 (Dallas Cowboys); 1984 (Miami Dolphins); 1991 (Washington Redskins)
6 - 1992 (Dallas Cowboys)
7 - 1993 (Dallas Cowboys)
8 - 1995 (Dallas Cowboys); 2010 (Pittsburgh Steelers); 2014 (New England Patriots); 2015 (Denver Broncos)
9 - 2016 (New England Patriots)

Naturally, there were league championships before the Super Bowl era. Other than New England, the most recent team to play in nine championships is Green Bay - their five Super Bowl appearances, plus NFL Championship Games in 1965, 1962, 1961 and 1960. The most recent to 10? Glad you asked! The Giants - their five Super Bowl appearances, as well as five trips to the NFL Championship game (all of them losses) in six seasons between 1958 and 1963.

For the first time since 1976, Dallas will neither hold outright nor share the record for the most Super Bowl appearances.

Also, New England now obviously holds the record for the fewest seasons to get to nine Super Bowls, at 32. Also, the fastest to eight Super Bowls (21 seasons), seven Super Bowls (16 seasons) and six Super Bowls (14 seasons).

And for the seventh Super Bowl in a row, there will be no team making its first appearince in the game. The last such team was New Orleans. This is mostly a product if that fact that there just aren't many teams left that haven't been to a Super Bwl (only Cleveland, Detroit, Houston, and Jacksonville). Previously, the longest streak of Super Bowls without a team making its first appearance was three.

As for Super Bowl victories, Pittsburgh's record of 6 is safe for this year. But Super Bowl losses? Denver holds the record with 5, which New England will tie if they lose this year's game.

*When Brady starts Super Bowl LI, he will have two more Super Bowl starts than any other quarterback. In the history of the Super Bowl, this has never before been the case. Bart Starr started the first two, but he never got a third. Bob Griese was the first to get to three but he never got a fourth. Staubach and Bradshaw and Montana and Kelly got to four but none got to a fifth. Before Brady, just Elway made it that far - but he didn't get to six. Brady did. And now he'll be at seven, two more than anyone else.

That sort of separating oneself from the pack - the way Brady has also done with postseason wins, the way Jerry Rice did with almost every passing record out there, the way Wayne Gretzky did with scoring - is one of the hallmarks of standing clearly above one's peers.

*And, of course, along with Brady's unprecedented 7th Super Bowl appearance as a player, Bill Belichick will become the first head coach to go to the Super Bowl seven times (he also won two rings as the Giants' defensive coordinator, and got to another Super Bowl in 1996 with the Patriots as an assistant under Parcells). The most recent previous head coach to take teams to seven championships was Don Shula, who in addition to his six Super Bowl appearances took the Baltimore Colts to the 1965 NFL Championship Game. George Halas took the Bears to seven Championship Games, too (interestingly, his two postseason losses came after the only two undefeated/untied regular seasons before the 1972 Dolphins). Paul Brown went to seven as well (no, the AAFC titles don't count). But Belichick still trails Steven Owen of the New York Giants, who went to eight. Who? Well, he lost six of them and retired over sixty years ago, which is why he's mostly forgotten.

*Teams who have been to a Super Bowl recent (ie, in the last three seasons) more often than not beat teams that have not been to a Super Bowl that recently. The underdog has won the last five Super Bowls.
 
Old 01-29-2017, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,628 posts, read 4,224,097 times
Reputation: 4582
Unsettomati,
well thought out..

What was the reasoning behind using 1957 or 1958 as the starting point for NFL Championships?
 
Old 01-29-2017, 07:59 AM
 
3,723 posts, read 3,880,962 times
Reputation: 2779
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteranderson12 View Post
Patroits!!!tom brady is getting his 5th ring,the falcons just got lucky!!!

only reason they beat green bay was cause greenbay had their recievers out!!heck dallas should have been in the superbowl!
Stop trying to diminish what Atlanta has accomplished this season - they are a good team and deserve to be in the Super Bowl. If you are in fact a Patriots fan, I am, it doesn't make any sense to treat Atlanta likely. They have a high power offense that can put up points and a pretty good defense as well. It should be a good game.
 
Old 01-29-2017, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 7,278,422 times
Reputation: 37479
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
Unsettomati,
well thought out..

What was the reasoning behind using 1957 or 1958 as the starting point for NFL Championships?
I didn't - I just didn't want to go back any further!

But...

For those wondering, the team with the most championship game appearances is the New York Giants, with 19 (4-1 in Super Bowls, 3-11 in NFL Championship Games between 1933 and 1965). This ignores their 1927 title because there was no postseason back then.

Second place goes to the Green Bay Packers with 13 (4-1 in Super Bowls, 6-2 in NFL Championship Games between 1933 and 1965) and, sort of, the Decatur Staleys/Chicago Staleys/Chicago Bears (1-1, 6-4, plus the 1932 championship playoff win played indoors in Chicago Stadium [a hockey arena] on an 80-yard field because of a blizzard - but the NFL considers this a regular season game so its inclusion as an official championship game appearance is dubious).

Anyway, fourth place would go to the Boston/Washington Redskins with 11 (3-2, 2-4), while fifth place will soon go to the Patriots for their 10th title game appearance. Their first was a 51-10 destruction by the Boston Patriots at the hand of the San Diego Chargers in 1963. The NFL recognizes the six American Football League championships from before the Super Bowl era as league championships. Interestingly, of the four teams currently tied (for another six days, anyway) with eight Super Bowl appearances, the Patriots are the only one that ever appeared in a title game before the Super Bowl era. In 1966, Dallas was a recent expansion team, Denver was the worst of the original 8 AFL teams, and Pittsburgh had been around since the early 1930s and had never even been in a championship game.
 
Old 01-29-2017, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Two Rivers, Wisconsin
11,723 posts, read 11,550,474 times
Reputation: 12484
I agree, give it up and I'm a Packer fan. Regardless of what Packers did to get to 10-6, running the table, they could not keep up with Falcons, playing the "what if" game after the fact doesn't matter. Packers were a mash unit, almost on life support and saying, well, if they were healthy, so what, they lost the game.

Falcons are in the SB, and saying they got lucky is totally wrong. I picked the Patriots to win, but I would not discount or dismiss the Falcons by any means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top