Red Mosquito

Simple Torture wrote:

Electromatic wrote:and the Patriots played likely the easiest schedule in football this year.

The AFC east hasn't fielded a decent QB in 2 decades not named Tom Brady. They allowed 31 to a pretty pedestrian offense this year in Seattle. At home if I remember correctly.

The roster isn't all that impressive. Really good coaching, really good secondary, really good tacklers, but everyone acts as if this Patriots team is some kind of juggernaut. It's Bellichick, Patricia, Brady and a pretty weak AFC overall.

They averaged 28, the Falcons averaged 34. That sounds like a good number to me. It could go either way as far as I'm concerned, but some kind of blow out? You're not paying attention.


Most teams are going to score less than their average in the super bowl because the teams they are playing against are better. We also continue to make it harder to play defense, so to an extent it depends on how the game is called. I'm not at all surprised if the Falcons lose Sunday, but they aren't giving up 49. and the Patriots aren't blowing them out unless some kind of crazy fluke happens. Maybe the 2007 Patriots, but they aren't playing Sunday.

Woah, woah, let's all relax! Chill, everything is fine. I wasn't arguing for a Patriots blowout or anything like that--I just wanted to point out that high-octane offenses like the Falcons have don't necessarily have a great record in the Super Bowl--they tend to score a touchdown or more below their scoring average, especially in the post-2000 era. Trrrrrrrust me, as a Patriots fan, I know no team is invincible, no matter how many points they score in the regular season.

Biff Pocoroba wrote:As much as I want Atlanta to win I'm about 60/40 leaning towards the Patriots. I hope I'm wrong and the last thing I expect is a blowout either way.

Kaius wrote:Falcons 31
Patriots 27

EJ wrote:

Kaius wrote:Falcons 31
Patriots 27

yeah, this one

Electromatic wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Electromatic wrote:and the Patriots played likely the easiest schedule in football this year.

The AFC east hasn't fielded a decent QB in 2 decades not named Tom Brady. They allowed 31 to a pretty pedestrian offense this year in Seattle. At home if I remember correctly.

The roster isn't all that impressive. Really good coaching, really good secondary, really good tacklers, but everyone acts as if this Patriots team is some kind of juggernaut. It's Bellichick, Patricia, Brady and a pretty weak AFC overall.

They averaged 28, the Falcons averaged 34. That sounds like a good number to me. It could go either way as far as I'm concerned, but some kind of blow out? You're not paying attention.


Most teams are going to score less than their average in the super bowl because the teams they are playing against are better. We also continue to make it harder to play defense, so to an extent it depends on how the game is called. I'm not at all surprised if the Falcons lose Sunday, but they aren't giving up 49. and the Patriots aren't blowing them out unless some kind of crazy fluke happens. Maybe the 2007 Patriots, but they aren't playing Sunday.

Woah, woah, let's all relax! Chill, everything is fine. I wasn't arguing for a Patriots blowout or anything like that--I just wanted to point out that high-octane offenses like the Falcons have don't necessarily have a great record in the Super Bowl--they tend to score a touchdown or more below their scoring average, especially in the post-2000 era. Trrrrrrrust me, as a Patriots fan, I know no team is invincible, no matter how many points they score in the regular season.

No worries, you're entitled to your opinion as I am mine and it's not all that serious anyway. The Patriots are the gold standard of the NFL since Kraft bought the team and the Falcons have been... the Falcons so it's not like your confidence is unwarranted.

Coach wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Electromatic wrote:and the Patriots played likely the easiest schedule in football this year.

The AFC east hasn't fielded a decent QB in 2 decades not named Tom Brady. They allowed 31 to a pretty pedestrian offense this year in Seattle. At home if I remember correctly.

The roster isn't all that impressive. Really good coaching, really good secondary, really good tacklers, but everyone acts as if this Patriots team is some kind of juggernaut. It's Bellichick, Patricia, Brady and a pretty weak AFC overall.

They averaged 28, the Falcons averaged 34. That sounds like a good number to me. It could go either way as far as I'm concerned, but some kind of blow out? You're not paying attention.


Most teams are going to score less than their average in the super bowl because the teams they are playing against are better. We also continue to make it harder to play defense, so to an extent it depends on how the game is called. I'm not at all surprised if the Falcons lose Sunday, but they aren't giving up 49. and the Patriots aren't blowing them out unless some kind of crazy fluke happens. Maybe the 2007 Patriots, but they aren't playing Sunday.

Woah, woah, let's all relax! Chill, everything is fine. I wasn't arguing for a Patriots blowout or anything like that--I just wanted to point out that high-octane offenses like the Falcons have don't necessarily have a great record in the Super Bowl--they tend to score a touchdown or more below their scoring average, especially in the post-2000 era. Trrrrrrrust me, as a Patriots fan, I know no team is invincible, no matter how many points they score in the regular season.

No worries, you're entitled to your opinion as I am mine and it's not all that serious anyway. The Patriots are the gold standard of the NFL since Kraft bought the team and the Falcons have been... the Falcons so it's not like your confidence is unwarranted.

To be fair to ST, he was only posting some factual, historical stats about how high powered teams, including the '07 Pats, failed in the biggest game that only counts.

Electromatic wrote:

Coach wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Electromatic wrote:and the Patriots played likely the easiest schedule in football this year.

The AFC east hasn't fielded a decent QB in 2 decades not named Tom Brady. They allowed 31 to a pretty pedestrian offense this year in Seattle. At home if I remember correctly.

The roster isn't all that impressive. Really good coaching, really good secondary, really good tacklers, but everyone acts as if this Patriots team is some kind of juggernaut. It's Bellichick, Patricia, Brady and a pretty weak AFC overall.

They averaged 28, the Falcons averaged 34. That sounds like a good number to me. It could go either way as far as I'm concerned, but some kind of blow out? You're not paying attention.


Most teams are going to score less than their average in the super bowl because the teams they are playing against are better. We also continue to make it harder to play defense, so to an extent it depends on how the game is called. I'm not at all surprised if the Falcons lose Sunday, but they aren't giving up 49. and the Patriots aren't blowing them out unless some kind of crazy fluke happens. Maybe the 2007 Patriots, but they aren't playing Sunday.

Woah, woah, let's all relax! Chill, everything is fine. I wasn't arguing for a Patriots blowout or anything like that--I just wanted to point out that high-octane offenses like the Falcons have don't necessarily have a great record in the Super Bowl--they tend to score a touchdown or more below their scoring average, especially in the post-2000 era. Trrrrrrrust me, as a Patriots fan, I know no team is invincible, no matter how many points they score in the regular season.

No worries, you're entitled to your opinion as I am mine and it's not all that serious anyway. The Patriots are the gold standard of the NFL since Kraft bought the team and the Falcons have been... the Falcons so it's not like your confidence is unwarranted.

To be fair to ST, he was only posting some factual, historical stats about how high powered teams, including the '07 Pats, failed in the biggest game that only counts.

I was speaking to Tyler at that time and the 49 point prediction not ST.

Seems like that got confused somewhere Probably my fault. It was an interesting stat line, that i missed, if he would like to discuss that further I'd like to get ST's take on that.

Who won the Armadillo races?

Electromatic wrote:I'm obviously going to be pretty crushed if the Falcons lose but the Patriots are the more balanced team with the better defense by quite a large margin even without Collins.

If it's within a FG those of us with a rooting interest are going to have fried nerves but i don't expect it to be more than a TD either way. Falcons have to score 30 to win most likely.

Coach wrote:Win or lose, I'll blast No Code afterward. Hail, Hail & Habit.

numbers wrote:

Electromatic wrote:I'm obviously going to be pretty crushed if the Falcons lose but the Patriots are the more balanced team with the better defense by quite a large margin even without Collins.

If it's within a FG those of us with a rooting interest are going to have fried nerves but i don't expect it to be more than a TD either way. Falcons have to score 30 to win most likely.

The defense has improved A TON since Collins left.