Belated Observations about SB 51 -- In General Edition

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I don't totally agree. I think Barnwell's conclusion is a bit overstated (I worded my conclusion differently for a reason), but I do think it the pass rush lost steam as the 4th quarter went on.
 

jmcc5400

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
5,204
That may be true, but look what they did after the Freeney sack on the first play after the Hightower strip:
  1. 2-15-ATL 30 (7:41) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short middle to 28-J.White to ATL 26 for 4 yards (22-K.Neal).
  2. 3-11-ATL 26 (7:03) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 19-M.Mitchell to ATL 14 for 12 yards (29-C.Goodwin).
  3. 1-10-ATL 14 (6:34) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 80-D.Amendola to ATL 6 for 8 yards (37-R.Allen).
  4. 2-2-ATL 6 (6:00) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 80-D.Amendola for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Those were pretty quick developing plays that didn't give the pass rush time to get home.

When the Pats got the ball back at their own 9, Brady almost committed intentional grounding on the first play. The second play was the long pass down the sideline into tight coverage. And then the 3rd and 9 that got out Brady's hands extremely quickly with some pressure coming from his right.

Anyway, no real argument. Just another excuse to relive this - I just think it's unfair to Atlanta (and the Patriots, for that matter) to make the Falcons defense seem to have been less competitive than I thought it was.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Atlanta's defense played competitively; it did not play well, except in spurts and spurts don't cut it.

When a defense is "gassed" one of two things, or a combination, is true. The opposing offense is really good. Or maybe the gassed defense isn't very good. Usually, some of both.

This game "gassed" seemingly became synonymous with a cruel blow from the gods -- as if games are supposed to last three quarters. "That's not fair" -- well no, it is actually.

Yes, they played really well the first half. And they took advantage of mistakes. But they could not sustain it and they COULD NOT GET OFF THE FIELD. That's why they were gassed. They were who most everyone thought they were.

But when you're sick at the outcome and tired of giving praise to the Pats .... let's pretend it was the big sack, fumble, boneheaded play calling and Matt Ryan's deficiencies.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
"Gassed" means tired. The ATL defense was tired. They played the equivalent of 2 football games worth of plays in the Super Bowl. Not sure how that reflects some anti-Patriot agenda.
 

Sportsbstn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2004
8,794
Atlanta's defense did play competitively, but they Patriots horrible play (many dropped passes, poor Brady throws and uncommon turnovers) contributed to the Falcons defense looking much better than it really was. The Patriots moved the ball just fine, but kept screwing things up. In the 2nd half, yes the Falcons defense got tired, but the Patriots tightened up the ship and I think would have dictated play either way. The Falcons defense is no way was better than the Patriots offense.
 

RoDaddy

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2002
3,245
Albany area, NY
The series of things that had to go right for the Patriots to win that game, starting around the fourth down conversion, is just amazing to contemplate more than 2 weeks late
It WAS amazing! I was curious of the actual number of key plays the Pats HAD TO HAVE to win and came up with the following. We all have our thoughts on which were most important but this list might have some value as a basic foundation moving forward on this discussion. For example, I left out the great Edelman catch since, as pointed out, this was not absolutely critical and happened on a first and 10. The coin toss was also pretty important but...

1. Down 28-3, 4th and 3 pass to Amendola on the left sideline for 17 yards
2. The Brady run on 3rd and 8 for 15 yards
3. The defensive stop after the fubbed onside kick
4. The great over the shoulder catch by Patrick Chung on the ensuing punt, which could easily have been fumbled
5. The FG drive
6. The Hightower strip sack on the ensuing Falcon drive
7. The third and 11 catch by Mitchell where he falls down for a first down
8. Two point conversion direct snap to White
9. Flowers sack after the big gains by Freemand and the great Julio Jones catch
10. Holding penalty on Long rush to take them out of FG range
11. 3rd and 10 pass to Hogan on the right sideline for a first down on the tying drive
12. Two point conversion to Amendola

I suppose none of the overtime winning drive plays were absolutely needed like the above but the 3 great and perfectly placed passes from Brady to Amendola, Hogan and Edelman showcased a lot of what makes Brady the greatest ever on just the one drive: fearlessness, accurate passing, and leadership
 

kartvelo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2003
10,461
At home
I think it's safe to say that getting to, and winning, the SB requires both being good and getting some breaks along the way.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
It WAS amazing! I was curious of the actual number of key plays the Pats HAD TO HAVE to win and came up with the following. We all have our thoughts on which were most important but this list might have some value as a basic foundation moving forward on this discussion. For example, I left out the great Edelman catch since, as pointed out, this was not absolutely critical and happened on a first and 10. The coin toss was also pretty important but...

1. Down 28-3, 4th and 3 pass to Amendola on the left sideline for 17 yards
2. The Brady run on 3rd and 8 for 15 yards
3. The defensive stop after the fubbed onside kick
4. The great over the shoulder catch by Patrick Chung on the ensuing punt, which could easily have been fumbled
5. The FG drive
6. The Hightower strip sack on the ensuing Falcon drive
7. The third and 11 catch by Mitchell where he falls down for a first down
8. Two point conversion direct snap to White
9. Flowers sack after the big gains by Freemand and the great Julio Jones catch
10. Holding penalty on Long rush to take them out of FG range
11. 3rd and 10 pass to Hogan on the right sideline for a first down on the tying drive
12. Two point conversion to Amendola

I suppose none of the overtime winning drive plays were absolutely needed like the above but the 3 great and perfectly placed passes from Brady to Amendola, Hogan and Edelman showcased a lot of what makes Brady the greatest ever on just the one drive: fearlessness, accurate passing, and leadership
I think you have to add the play after the holding penalty on Long, when Butler blanketed Gabriel, to the must have list. That play could have easily put them back in FG range and made winning substantially harder. I would also add the last two regulation TDs themselves.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
"Gassed" means tired. The ATL defense was tired. They played the equivalent of 2 football games worth of plays in the Super Bowl. Not sure how that reflects some anti-Patriot agenda.
As did the Patriots offensive players. Which is why I don't necessarily buy into the theory that they were gassed. They should have been equally as gassed. Think about receivers vs D-backs. Every time a receiver runs 20 yards downfield, there is a d-back running right along with them (Falcons were in man coverage most of the game).
I also think one could argue that the Pats O-line should have been more tired than the Falcons D-line.Put it this way...the Pats offensive line did not rotate. All 5 were in for every play. The Falcons defensive line was rotating in and out throughout the game.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
Isn't it possible that the Patriots were better conditioned, and thus they weren't as tired at the end of 90+ plays?
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
It's at least possible that the Pats players are better conditioned, though.

Edit: or what Koufax asked...
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
"Gassed" means tired. The ATL defense was tired. They played the equivalent of 2 football games worth of plays in the Super Bowl. Not sure how that reflects some anti-Patriot agenda.
Yeah I certainly don't mean it as a slight against the Patriots or how incredible Brady was on the last several drives or anything.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
Isn't it possible that the Patriots were better conditioned, and thus they weren't as tired at the end of 90+ plays?
BB replaced the strength/conditioning last year after they were the most injured team. There's a great twitter feed @ManGamesLostNFL that charts out how many games each team lost to injury. In 2016, Pats and Falcons were among the healthiest.
ImageUploadedBySons of Sam Horn1487767264.169394.jpg
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
A few after watching the game few times.

(1) TB. The last drive was terrifying, and not because of the could-have-been pick in the end zone, which was evident in real time. Instead because of several throws that made their way to the target by the width of a hair, which seemed routine in real time. So much must go into this including mental acuity, the release, touch and ability to deliver the fastball. Delay the release by a thousandth of a second, take a mph off the fastball, we are looking at incompletions or picks. That's what separates GOATs from average or worse. When the time comes (and the time will come unless he leaves early), there will be talk of TB falling off a cliff when, in fact, he probably just stepped off a curb.

(2) Mitchell. Two thoughts occurred to me. First, a receiver like this comes to us via the draft about once every 10 years, so enjoy his performance. Second, the 4th round of late has been nice.

(3) Coaching, especially head coaching. In the main, it's just so bad. It's not sufficient to win a SB, but good
coaching -- not great, just solid, competent coaching - is certainly necessary. There just isn't the talent gap that existed in the 80s and 90s to get away with poor coaching in this game; the teams are too close. Basic stuff here - time on the clock, position on the field, situational awareness. You may want players to just play their game, but you certainly don't want that from your coaches. Dance with who brung ya is a cheap excuse for failure.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,766
Pittsburgh, PA
BB replaced the strength/conditioning last year after they were the most injured team. There's a great twitter feed @ManGamesLostNFL that charts out how many games each team lost to injury. In 2016, Pats and Falcons were among the healthiest.
View attachment 14573
If bubble size represents the quality of players lost (in AV), I guess most of NE's bubble size owes to Gronk.

Who were the all-pros that KC and Dallas lost, though? Did they count Romo as being "injured" the full year?
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
As did the Patriots offensive players. Which is why I don't necessarily buy into the theory that they were gassed. They should have been equally as gassed. Think about receivers vs D-backs. Every time a receiver runs 20 yards downfield, there is a d-back running right along with them (Falcons were in man coverage most of the game).
I also think one could argue that the Pats O-line should have been more tired than the Falcons D-line.Put it this way...the Pats offensive line did not rotate. All 5 were in for every play. The Falcons defensive line was rotating in and out throughout the game.
Because playing defense front (DL or LB) is more exhausting than playing OL. That's as close to a truism as you're likely to find; I'd welcome a qualified dissenting opinion, but a quick Google search revealed plenty of "DL takes more energy" hits, and none of the inverse.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If bubble size represents the quality of players lost (in AV), I guess most of NE's bubble size owes to Gronk.

Who were the all-pros that KC and Dallas lost, though? Did they count Romo as being "injured" the full year?
Maybe it factors in Vollmer?
Plus the Games lost to the PUP guys?
Does a suspension get counted? (TB and Nink)
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
Because playing defense front (DL or LB) is more exhausting than playing OL. That's as close to a truism as you're likely to find; I'd welcome a qualified dissenting opinion, but a quick Google search revealed plenty of "DL takes more energy" hits, and none of the inverse.
That's a great point, and I can't come up with a solid argument that is nothing but opinion based on what I have experienced. I played 8 years of football growing up, both as an offensive lineman (guard) and linebacker. During that time, I found that being a guard was more mentally difficult, as I had to think about who I was supposed to block on every play. It is not always easy. As a linebacker, there isn't as much thinking. See the ball, chase the ball. I know it isn't that simple, but for me it was. Physically, playing guard can be challenging as well. On pulling plays, you have to get out of your stance and fly down the line as fast as you can to get in front of the running back. Then you have to turn down field and make your block. That type of play can be a 15-20 yard sprint. Not easy for a fat kid like me. On running plays, the guy you are blocking may not be right in front of you. And once you find that guy, you are fighting with him just as much as he is fighting with you. As a linebacker, I think the most physically demanding part was the hits. Many plays were a 3-5 yard sprint to the ball. When in pass cover, way easier as I just had to get into my zone, no sprint unless my guy caught the ball.

I have also coached football for several years, from grades 6-8 and up through high school (total of 7 years coaching). And I never found that the defensive lineman were any more tired than the offensive lineman. Both sides are fighting each other just as hard in the trench.

Like I said, all this is really just anecdotal based on my experiences.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,863
Do substitution patterns tell us anything as a proxy for the level of exertion? I was under the impression that OL plays the entire game, while DL liberally rest.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
That's a great point, and I can't come up with a solid argument that is nothing but opinion based on what I have experienced. I played 8 years of football growing up, both as an offensive lineman (guard) and linebacker. During that time, I found that being a guard was more mentally difficult, as I had to think about who I was supposed to block on every play. It is not always easy. As a linebacker, there isn't as much thinking. See the ball, chase the ball. I know it isn't that simple, but for me it was. Physically, playing guard can be challenging as well. On pulling plays, you have to get out of your stance and fly down the line as fast as you can to get in front of the running back. Then you have to turn down field and make your block. That type of play can be a 15-20 yard sprint. Not easy for a fat kid like me. On running plays, the guy you are blocking may not be right in front of you. And once you find that guy, you are fighting with him just as much as he is fighting with you. As a linebacker, I think the most physically demanding part was the hits. Many plays were a 3-5 yard sprint to the ball. When in pass cover, way easier as I just had to get into my zone, no sprint unless my guy caught the ball.

I have also coached football for several years, from grades 6-8 and up through high school (total of 7 years coaching). And I never found that the defensive lineman were any more tired than the offensive lineman. Both sides are fighting each other just as hard in the trench.

Like I said, all this is really just anecdotal based on my experiences.
Two points: 1) the Patriots OL were hardly run blocking at all. On pass protection reps, the defensive team is doing a lot more running than the offense. 2) In coverage, the Falcons were pretty heavy man-to-man, which is a lot more running than zone, as you note.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,878
San Andreas Fault
It WAS amazing! I was curious of the actual number of key plays the Pats HAD TO HAVE to win and came up with the following. We all have our thoughts on which were most important but this list might have some value as a basic foundation moving forward on this discussion. For example, I left out the great Edelman catch since, as pointed out, this was not absolutely critical and happened on a first and 10. The coin toss was also pretty important but...

1. Down 28-3, 4th and 3 pass to Amendola on the left sideline for 17 yards
2. The Brady run on 3rd and 8 for 15 yards
3. The defensive stop after the fubbed onside kick
4. The great over the shoulder catch by Patrick Chung on the ensuing punt, which could easily have been fumbled
5. The FG drive
6. The Hightower strip sack on the ensuing Falcon drive
7. The third and 11 catch by Mitchell where he falls down for a first down
8. Two point conversion direct snap to White
9. Flowers sack after the big gains by Freemand and the great Julio Jones catch
10. Holding penalty on Long rush to take them out of FG range
11. 3rd and 10 pass to Hogan on the right sideline for a first down on the tying drive
12. Two point conversion to Amendola

I suppose none of the overtime winning drive plays were absolutely needed like the above but the 3 great and perfectly placed passes from Brady to Amendola, Hogan and Edelman showcased a lot of what makes Brady the greatest ever on just the one drive: fearlessness, accurate passing, and leadership
The reason Edelman's catch play was absolutely critical was because, first, Alford could have intercepted it outright, and, second, if Julian hadn't gotten himself to the ball so insanely fast after Alford's tip, Allen and Neal were right there to possibly intercept it.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
I'm happy the Pats saved the White toss 2 point conversion play for the OT touchdown.

I feel the like the other two were much better plays for getting 2 points than the toss sweep they had. Especially considering the Atlanta defense is based on speed. Even with a "gassed" D, Atlanta came very close to blowing it up completely.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
Two points: 1) the Patriots OL were hardly run blocking at all. On pass protection reps, the defensive team is doing a lot more running than the offense. 2) In coverage, the Falcons were pretty heavy man-to-man, which is a lot more running than zone, as you note.
Yup no question on both points.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
If Amendola had been stopped short and they failed to convert the 2 pointer after the penalty, I would have hated Danny for a few years at least for not diving in low. Hard for corners to tackle with their knees.

But he made it and I Lurrrrv him soooo muchly :)
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
That Amendola 2pt conversion still scares me even though I know what happens. They're going to have a blast watching this game at the Kraft celebration party.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Because playing defense front (DL or LB) is more exhausting than playing OL. That's as close to a truism as you're likely to find; I'd welcome a qualified dissenting opinion, but a quick Google search revealed plenty of "DL takes more energy" hits, and none of the inverse.
Stipulated for the sake of this argument. What's to be concluded from "gassed"?

Bottom line -- they yielded 34 points and 546 yards, lost TOP 40 to 23 minutes, gave up 37 first downs (compared with their own 17), and the Pats ran a SB record 93 plays.

Another way of saying the Pats' offense was incredibly productive, the Falcons' defense on the whole sucked, or some combination thereof. I'll go with the combination. Which squares with Atlanta's regular season:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

It's certainly not attributable to bad luck. The breaks largely went their way, what with the fumble and pick-six.

If we were on the other side of this remarkable game, we would not be saying, "too bad -- good young defense." (plagiarizing mediots on this point). We would be screaming about our defense's inability to get off the field and concluding, correctly, that it sucks.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,766
Pittsburgh, PA
Saying a side got gassed is another way of saying that the success of their opponents accelerated over time, due to their own increasing inability to keep up or make plays. Missed a beat, lost the rhythm, and nothing's falling into place. Only missed by a fraction, slipped a little off their pace.

Maybe it's just descriptive in retrospect, since obviously the points by the Pats accelerated and the points by the Falcons went away. But I think there's a predictive element to it as well. Pass rush and man defense is more tiring to the defenders than the corresponding tasks are to the offense. I think we started to see that, not dramatically and universally (obviously Brady still got sacked a few times), but around the edges in terms of the tightness of the man coverage downfield, the tackling abilities, etc. I definitely think the Falcons lost a step over the course of the 2nd half, and it ended up mattering greatly the last few drives.
 

Curt S Loew

SoSH Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
6,514
Shantytown
It seems people are confusing the defense was "gassed" as in tired, and got "gassed" as in was easily beaten. The predominate story after the game, was that the defense was "gassed" as in they were worn out and tired.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Saying a side got gassed is another way of saying that the success of their opponents accelerated over time, due to their own increasing inability to keep up or make plays. Missed a beat, lost the rhythm, and nothing's falling into place. Only missed by a fraction, slipped a little off their pace.
Bingo. Which is another way of saying that defense is not very good. Which the regular season told us.

This is not to diminish by one iota what the Pats did to climb out of that whole. I don't believe any other QB or team could have accomplished it in the circumstances. They did what great teams do - demolish mediocre or worse defense.

But it doesn't take a lot to imagine this game playing out in other ways. Take away one of the Blount fumble or the pick-6. It's a different game, and maybe the rout - and it was a rout - starts in the 3rd quarter rather than the 4th. Not I'm not going to do that because I give the Falcons credit for those plays. But a good defense it's not because a good defense is consistent and plays for 4 quarters.

"Gassed" has John Harbaugh style excuse making baked into it in these circumstances: "Oh, they rope-a-doped them ... Clever, not manly (like the AFC North)." That's why I hate the term.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,209
South of North
Another thing to consider is that ATL was primarily a zone pass D, but adjusted because it's the Pats and TB12. As someone else posted above, man is more tiring than zone.

Also FWIW, I consider gassed a synonym for tired.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,060
Hingham, MA
I guess when I think of gassed I think of the 2006 AFCCG when the D, which was literally sick and tired, played great in the first half then got trampled in the second half. The Pats didn't gash Atlanta up and down the field like the Colts did in 2006. So it was the difference between plays barely going Atlanta's way to barely going the Pats way
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Seem pretty similar to me outside of the flu running through the '06 Pats. Pats defense actually played better in the 4th quarter in that game than Atlanta did. Forced two three and outs.
 

Curt S Loew

SoSH Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
6,514
Shantytown
Yeah. The defense wasn't "gassed" by the Patriots. Not sure where people are getting that inference. The theme was that they were gassed. Tired.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I guess when I think of gassed I think of the 2006 AFCCG when the D, which was literally sick and tired, played great in the first half then got trampled in the second half. The Pats didn't gash Atlanta up and down the field like the Colts did in 2006. So it was the difference between plays barely going Atlanta's way to barely going the Pats way
That's an interesting comparison. Thank you.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
In a lot of ways, the Super Bowl was similar to the NFCCG. The Packers, like the Patriots, moved the ball pretty well in the first half but had little to show for it - they drove 52 yards then couldn't convert a 3rd-and-4 and then missed a field goal, Ripkowski fumbled on like the 11, a couple Jared Cook drops, etc., and it was 24-0 at the half. Then in the second half, the Falcons couldn't stop the Packers (who scored TDs on three straight second-half drives). The difference is that the Packers D couldn't stop the Falcons in the second half (Atlanta scored three TDs on four second-half drives), while the Patriots D stepped up late.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,284
AZ
If Amendola had been stopped short and they failed to convert the 2 pointer after the penalty, I would have hated Danny for a few years at least for not diving in low. Hard for corners to tackle with their knees.

But he made it and I Lurrrrv him soooo muchly :)
I think Hogan would have been the goat. He probably needed to release to avoid a penalty but my guess is the play design is intended for him to get a bit more of the cornerback than he did. Collins made a heck of play, though. A second year guy almost made a potentially championship winning tackle depending on what the Patriots do after the penalty.

The Amendola play reminds me of the Devlin play at the goal line against the Seahawks earlier in the year. Both looked like they were going to be good by at least a yard or more until it closed down very very quickly.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
Saying a side got gassed is another way of saying that the success of their opponents accelerated over time, due to their own increasing inability to keep up or make plays. Missed a beat, lost the rhythm, and nothing's falling into place. Only missed by a fraction, slipped a little off their pace..
They are tired...Right Now?
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
Just watching the end of the game again, I had a couple of thoughts.

- Buck mentions Slater got cleared out on the fair catch play near the end of regulation, specifically saying something like "no flag though". I'm assuming that a free kick would still be in play if a penalty was called? A personal foul call would have set up a 60 yard FG ayyempt with a Falcon returner no doubt waiting in front of the goal posts for the chance to run back anything short. Thatight literally have been the most exciting play in SB history.

- I really wonder if Lewis could have made magic happen on the last play of regulation. He had a wall of about 7 huge blockers in front of him and the whole field to work with. Biggest threat was pursuers behind him, but that too could have been a true Holy Shit! end to the game.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
I don't think Lewis had a real chance to score because he probably would have outraced his blockers at some point but I definitely think he could have soiled some underwear had he not gotten chased down from behind and hurt himself. There was definitely a cutback opportunity if he had been able to get past the initial wave.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
I don't think Lewis had a real chance to score because he probably would have outraced his blockers at some point but I definitely think he could have soiled some underwear had he not gotten chased down from behind and hurt himself. There was definitely a cutback opportunity if he had been able to get past the initial wave.
Plus there's always a random possibility of a defensive penalty or something that would give the Pats an open play on the final play.
 

CoolPapaLaSchelle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2015
114
Rewatching the game, the clock management amazes me. Atlanta went up 28-3 with 8:31 in the third. It took us more than 6 minutes to get the TD that made it 28-9. So, 17 minutes left and we are down three scores. Not only did we make up the gap, but (a) the first of our drives ate up more than 5 minutes, and resulted in only a FG; (b) we tied it with almost a minute to spare; and (c) we ended the game with two timeouts still unused. The latter seems particularly crazy to me.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,427
Just watching the end of the game again, I had a couple of thoughts.

- Buck mentions Slater got cleared out on the fair catch play near the end of regulation, specifically saying something like "no flag though". I'm assuming that a free kick would still be in play if a penalty was called? A personal foul call would have set up a 60 yard FG ayyempt with a Falcon returner no doubt waiting in front of the goal posts for the chance to run back anything short. Thatight literally have been the most exciting play in SB history.
Game can't end on a penalty, so yes, I think the free kick would have been in play.
 

Erik Hanson's Hook

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2013
1,079
Re: The Lewis play

More concerning to me was him going down with yet another non-contact injury. He's a good player but can't stay healthy.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,878
San Andreas Fault
Rewatching the game, the clock management amazes me. Atlanta went up 28-3 with 8:31 in the third. It took us more than 6 minutes to get the TD that made it 28-9. So, 17 minutes left and we are down three scores. Not only did we make up the gap, but (a) the first of our drives ate up more than 5 minutes, and resulted in only a FG; (b) we tied it with almost a minute to spare; and (c) we ended the game with two timeouts still unused. The latter seems particularly crazy to me.
It helped that after Atlanta went up 28-3, they, Atlanta, never had a possession that lasted longer than about 2 minutes 15 seconds. They had four possessions and one of them of course ended quickly with the Hightower strip sack and Alan Branch recovery. Any Atlanta drive of even five minutes would have made it all the more improbable that the Pats win.